Theater Thoughts NY

Getting this going again

2009-04-03T07:23:00.001-07:00

Well, seems like we dropped off the face of the planet for a while. Kev has now moved to London and is preparing to launch a blog about his theater escapades over there. In the meantime, he's making us all jealous with two other blogs, about food and his adventures in the UK - stuffiseeinlondon.blogspot.com & stuffieatinlondon.blogspot.com.

As for me, I'm still living it up here in NYC. Not seeing as much theater as I used to (or at least as much that caused me to need a blog) but I have seen a few great things lately that I wanted to write about so I won't forget them. Stay tuned for those to come...

Catching Up

2007-05-02T10:51:00.000-07:00

I've been bad at posting, and Kevin's posts just reminded me of that. Here are some of the shows I've seen over the past few months that Kevin didn't mention:

King Hedley II
- Great production, and the last of the August Wilson season for the Signature Theatre. Really shocking ending that I wasn't suspecting. Amazing performance by the lead, Russell Hornsby.

Jack Goes Boating
- The show got some good reviews, and especially the cast. I thought you really couldn't go wrong with Phylip Seymour Hoffman and one of my favorites, John Ortiz. Daphne But I tell you, this was not my favorite show. I guess the subject matter, a bunch of loser friends just trying to get through life, just didn't hold my attention.

Tall Grass
- Quite possibly one of the worst shows I've seen in a long time. If only there had been an intermission, I would have bolted out of the theatre. C'est la via... It was a spoof on bad horror theatre - using and overusing the deus ex machina technique. Never again..

All the Wrong Reasons
- A one man show from New York Theatre Workshop (my favorite). Funny, cute, uplifting at the end, but looking back at it now, I didn't take that much away. I'm still in the camp of one-person shows not being so awesome.

Essential Self Defense
- Why, Adam Rapp, why? So excited for this show, all season I was looking forward. Maybe it was a bit over my head - or Rapp was trying to be more forward-thinking than I can take. But the lead actor's accent alone was enough to drive me insane! I say to Rapp stick to the Red Light Winter style and I'll still adore your work. Any more of this nonsense, and I'm out.

The Accomplices
- A terrible account of the troubles and plight of Jews in America during the Holocaust. It could have been really intriguing, and certainly the subject matter is pertinent. But this play, written by a former report, seemed awkward at best. Direction was unbelievably poor.

Legally Blonde
- Yes, I saw Legally Blonde...and yes, I actually liked it. I'm a big fan of the movie (a woman from my university wrote the screenplay, yeah JMU) and can watch it over and over again. I saw this on a rainy Sundy (noreaster, anyone?) and it certainly brought up my mood. Christian Borle was my favorite as Elle's love interest. Orfeh and Andy Karl are adorable as the real-life couple playing the hairdresser friend and UPS man. Laura Belly Bundy - no Reese Witherspoon - but she does a fine job.

Next up, I'll be seeing Crazy Mary at Playwrights. Hope they pull this one off, it's been a weak season so far for them..

LoveMusik

2007-05-01T09:20:00.000-07:00

So I didn't intend to see this show at all. It sounded completely unappealing to me: a musical based on love letters between Kurt Weill and Lotte Lenya. The student rush tickets were the most expensive student tickets I've ever bought and the seats were in the rear mezzanine. Plus, I haven't seen a good show at the Biltmore since Reckless, and usually I usher there and see shows for free. Sure it got the most Drama Desk award nominations, with 12, but I was in the mood for a fun musical like "In the Heights" or something. But it was across the street from "Moon for the Misbegotten," and I got to chatting with some of the folks in that student rush line. A solid argument was made: "It's a Hal Prince show... come on, it could be his last." Morbid, but true, right? So I figured if I wanted to pretend I was interested in theater at all, I figured I should check it out. Plus it's Michael Cerveris and Donna Murphy, right? You can't really go wrong with that.

So I went in with very low expectations. Low expectations are always good, because sometimes you're just blown away but what you find. In this case, I wasn't. Yeah, I'm sorry to say, it just wasn't all that. Okay, it wasn't BAD, and I stayed awake and paid attention through the entire thing, which definitely says something, given I was sitting in theaters all day that day and had rear mezz seats. But it wasn't worth more Drama Desk nominations than Spring Awakening. I will say it's not Michael Cerveris and Donna Murphy singing love letters back and forth to each other (which I was really scared it was going to be), but it's not too far off. Kurt Weill and Lotte Lenya are pretty interesting characters, and after seeing the show, I guess I'd be interested in learning more about them? Maybe? Okay, I don't really care about them still. For those of you who don't know, Kurt Weill was a composer (he wrote the music to Brecht's Threepenny Opera), and Lenya was his on-again off-again wife that hit it big starring in that show.

The play basically starts off in the 20s in Berlin and follows the lives of Weill and Lenya. I feel like it's really more of her story, which is a much more interesting one anyway, I guess. But there's really nothing all that spectacular about it. The musical just seems like one of those biopic musicals, very Gypsy, maybe a little Boy from Oz and Jersey Boys (down to the ending which I thought was very cliche, but that might just be me). Except not as interesting. It got interesting at one point, when they had to deal with Nazi Germany and the war, which I always think will bring some intrigue and suspense, but then they just moved to America and the whole Nazi thing just disappeared. And there were some RANDOM scenes that were just like, what's going on? They were the two uppity numbers that pulled you away from the somber, slow-songed love story, but were so incredibly random that I can't decide whether they worked or not.

Michael Cerveris and Donna Murphy, both quite good, won't deny (although Michael Cerveris with hair is like, what?). The play, let me reiterate, is a musical based on love letters between Kurt Weill and Lotte Lenya. Yup, it's just what it sounds like. If it sounds appealing to you, go for it. But really, don't expect it to be much more...

A Moon for the Misbegotten

2007-05-01T09:09:00.000-07:00

I'm still impressed how Eugene O'Neill can use like three characters and just have them talk in the same setting for 3 hours and have me gripped the entire time. It's impressive, since I can't stay awake in an hour long class with like famous professors. I stood through the four hours of Long Day's Journey Into Night a few years back, and was happy to revisit Jim Tyrone for A Moon for the Misbegotten this weekend.

I haven't read the reviews for this, but I heard they weren't great. I, however, thought the play was quite good. It takes a little while to get started, but I wouldn't say it dragged at all. There are some great humorous scenes, and Colm Meaney and Kevin Spacey are both able to get some good laughs. Eve Best delivers an impressive performance that must be incredibly draining. It's very impressive. She's also much prettier in real life than her pictures, I think.

In any case, the play basically follows kind of a complicated love story between Josie Hogan (Best), a tough farm girl, and her landlord, Jim Tyrone (Spacey). Colm Meaney plays Josie's father and plays a pretty integral part in the play as well. It's an impressive plot for essentially three people talking, and it's quite gripping.

The cast is solid all around. I sat in the front row, so I got a great closeup view of the action (as well as a straight shot up Eve Best's skirt... scandalous!), and the three main actors were really quite impressive. Kevin Spacey's one of my favorite actors, and I had high expectations for the cast, and for the most part it was met.

It's a solid show, and I think it's worth seeing. Check it out!

TalkRadio

2007-05-01T08:58:00.000-07:00

Okay! Back to real-time updating. I have the time to do this now because it's the middle of finals and I'm procrastinating. In any case, I made it up to the city this past weekend and saw a few shows, starting with Eric Bogosian's TalkRadio.

For those loyal readers, you know I'm a bit biased towards Bogosian, and this play kept me on board. It was a great show, both humorous but heavy. It takes place in a radio studio in Cleveland, Ohio, back when the first Bush was VP of the country. Barry Champlain, played by Liev Schreiber, has a controversial night talk show that is just about to be picked up for national syndication, and the setting of the play is the final "preview" night. It sounds a bit Howard Sternish, and that did cross my mind as I was watching it, but it's a bit different, and there's some backstory with Champlain, and you get some nice monologues from each character that gives some background behind the relationships between Champlain and each member in the studio.

In any case, Liev Schreiber's performance is pretty incredible. I saw him as MacBeth, and Henry V, and all, but this performance really blew me away. There's so much depth to his character, at once you think he's a huge jerk, which he is, but you can't help feeling sorry for him, and he still manages to somehow be a likable protagonist, although it doesn't seem like there's anything to like about him. He's pompous and arrogant, but manages to command respect but still have this air of vulnerability. I don't know what I'm saying. But he's great.

The entire cast is not too bad as well. Sebastian Stan is this kid I saw at Tribeca last year who was in one of the movies in my theater, "The Architect." I just thought I'd mention that. His character was pretty fun.

To fans of Bogosian or Bogosian-esque fare and fans of good acting and quality theater, I recommend.

Catching up. A LOT.

2007-05-01T08:35:00.000-07:00

So I don't get to the city that often, and Lydia's busy traveling to California for movie shoots and studying for random tests, so apparently this poor little blog has fallen by the wayside. I know Lydia's definitely seen a bunch of shows, and I saw a few too. I'll touch on a couple I saw since the last post when I was up in NY for St. Patrick's Day, and then do posts for shows I saw this past weekend.

Prometheus Bound

This was a solid production put on at the Classic Stage Company. I wasn't really in the mood for ancient Greek drama, but it was pretty gripping and powerful nonetheless.

Some Men

This had its ups and downs. I guess I expected a bit more from Terrence McNally. It was a pretty interesting insight into gay life through the years, and I did find it very intriguing. There were some sections that were random which I thought could have been nixed. The cast was pretty solid and the production was interesting. Some of the characters definitely left an impression I think, and there were some memorable scenes. I walked out of it with an overall positive impression, but no terribly strong feelings either way.

Enemies, A Love Story

I saw this in Philadelphia last month. The audience was awful, and the play was nothing much to talk about. It had to do with love affairs and Jewish immigrants in Brooklyn. It's gone now.

Caroline, or Change

I saw this in Philadephia a couple weeks ago. It was a pretty darn good show, with some funny aspects while dealing with some heavy issues of race and class in New Orleans. I enjoyed it.

A Very Common Procedure

2007-02-13T08:30:00.000-08:00

A Very Common Procedure is a new play that opens tomorrow from MCC, running at the Lucille Lortel theatre. I have to admit, I didn't have terribly high expectations walking in to the theatre - but I walked away thinking this was a really solid play, which made me think about a lot of things I haven't really considered before.

Essentially the show is desribed as "a husband, his wife, and her doctor take a crash course in the workings of the human heart. Carolyn Goldenhersch begins an extra-marital affair with Dr. Anil Patel that takes them from Indian restaurants in Queens to Jewish delis on the Lower East Side."

Well, reading that it doesn't sound terribly interesting - but add in the fact that Carolyn and Anil met in a hospital after he had just performed unsuccessful heart surgery on their infant, it throws the show into a whole new direction. The climax of the story (as the three characters all finally come together and confront each other) is really powerful, and I felt quite anxious as I was watching it - a feeling I hadn't gotten in a while. Despite being incredibly sad at moments the show is also quite funny - laugh out loud funny. The men, Amir Arison as Dr. Anil Patel, and Stephen Kunken as Mr. Goldenhersch, are fantastic and both very comfortable with their characters. Lynn Collins as Carolyn is a bit less comfortable - partly due to her terrible wardrobe (really, whose idea was it to put this woman in a low-cut black dress, black stockings, and ugg-like boots?...see photo). As the show progresses, she grew on me - but I still preferred the two guys.

All in all though, a good solid play - something that doesn't happen all that often in theatre. I'll be anxious to see what the reviews say.

(photo - Sara Krulwich, NYT)

A Few Shows...

2007-02-09T07:12:00.000-08:00

Wow, have I been a bad blogger. I'm not sure what happened, but I've seen several shows since I last wrote - so here's a brief re-cap of each of them.

Anon
Anon is a new show at the Atlantic Second Stage - and it's actually the first production on this new stage. What a great space it is - let me tell you, fantastic! The playwright, Kate Robbin, was a writer on Six Feet Under, a theme you'll see repeated in one of the shows below (All That I Will Ever Be) - although this show is much better than the other. The show focuses around sexually-addicted men and the women that are in relationships with them. Two couples are the main focus - Trip and Alison, and Trip's mother and father - and each relationship is a disaster. Trip meets Alison when she comes over as a pet psychologist to try and help his ailing cat. The two share an instant chemistry that day and begin their relationship. Things start to go really wrong when Alison learns of Trips addiction to Porn, and his open admission of no longer being attracted to her. Cut to Trip's parents - his Dad's been constantly cheating on his Mom for years, and she's yet to leave him. Really healthy, huh? Between these two stories, monologues from ten actresses are interwoven, giving us a glimpse into all kinds of terrible relationships with sexually-addicted men. I really enjoyed the play - right up until the ending. I'm a big believer in a good ending - to anything really, be it a book, play, movie, etc. This show just didn't have any big punch at the end - and I needed a bit more resolution. I think it's got a lot of potential so hopefully it can have that played out in another production.

All That I Will Ever Be
I've written in the past about how much I really love New York Theatre Workshop. I really do love mostly everything about it. It's too bad that this time around, I loved everything about my experience there - except the play that I saw. With Alan Ball, the esteemed writer of Six Feet Under and American Beauty, I thought to myself - really, how can this go wrong? But it did, and it's too bad - because it's not too often that a well-hyped new play comes about from an American writer. The play follows the story of a shape-shifting man playing the roles of a cellphone salesman and male hustler. This man, who we know mostly as Omar, changes his name and nationality several times as the story unfolds. We see Omar actually let his guard down to begin a relationship with the down-and-out LA slacker, living on his Dad's money. Blah blah blah ... problems ensue and Omar starts to give away more and more of his identity - only not to Dwight, but to his other Clients. After two and a half hours - of dialogue that can mostly be cut - we get not real resolution and all of this talk amounts to not much at all. I walked away feeling like I'd seen this before - in all the shows of the past two years, Little Dog Laughed, The Scene, etc etc...this play didn't bring anything new for me to think about. So - I guess NYTW can't get them all right - that'd be just asking for too much.

No Great Society

The second show I saw at NYTW (at their smaller East Fourth Street theatre) was an extension of a piece that played earlier at PS 122. The hour-long show splits into two parts, both showcasing and reinventing Jack Kerouac's television appearances. The first is The Firing Line show, in which Buckley (Ben Williams) hosts Kerouac (Susie Sokol) on a panel with Lewis Yablonsky (Vin Knight), a sociologist who wrote a book about hippie culture, and Ed Sanders (Scott Shepherd), a musician, poet and radical. What a combination. What's great about this panel (which is to define Hippies) is that it never really gets anything accomplished. None of the guests really define hippies and Kerouac spends the show in a drunken (and hilarious!) stupor.

The second part of the show, Steven Allen's radio talk show - Kerouac reads selections from two of his works and lots of craziness ensues. I got a bit lost in this segment - and honestly could have just stood to see more of the first part. I was laughing hysterically, especially when Kerouac falls out of his chair and begins stroking his co-panelist's shoe (the uptight sociologist no less). Susie Sokol is brilliant in her interpretation of Jack Kerouac. I read in her bio that she's a second grade teacher - what a fun class that must be! As for this type of experimental theatre - I can take it or leave - but I think I'll take this one.

Edward Scissorhands - The Musical

2007-02-02T18:30:00.000-08:00

So I saw this show in Philadelphia a few weeks ago. Apparently it's a transport from London and played at the big Broadway style theater in Philadelphia. The show is obviously based on the movie, but it's entirely a dance musical with no dialogue or songs, choreographed and directed by Matthew Bourne who did "Play Without Words." I thought this was pretty obvious from the play description, but apparently not to the bulk of Philadelphia audiences who would say things like "I sure hope they talk soon" about every 10 minutes.

Even though I hadn't seen the movie in a long time, the musical was very easy to follow and worked surprisingly well without any dialogue. In fact, it's hard to imagine seeing it with dialogue. It was definitely a play that built on the images and colors that are so prominent in the film (which I'm watching right now), so it was definitely a spectacle with regards to sets and dancing. It was a little underwhelming though, as I expected the dancing to be significantly more wow and the sets to be a bit more whoa. But it was still pretty nice.

So it was a nice night at the theater, although nothing to really write home about. I think the scenes from the website are a bit more exciting than they are live, but it was still quite pretty and fun. It did make me want to re-see the movie, which thanks to Encore and my last week of discounted cable, I'm able to do right now.

The Fever

2007-02-02T18:21:00.000-08:00

Oh how I dread posting about this show, and I usually like posting about shows that are awful. Unfortunately, I have a) absolutely NO recollection of what the play was about, b) absolutely NO recollection of what happened in the play and c) absolutely NO desire to relive the time spent at the play.

Let me give you a little background. Wallace Shawn wrote and starred in this one man play. He then talks for about two hours. I don't know about what. I just recall there being maybe ... nope I can't remember anything about it. I do remember that the house lights would turn on every now and then because he would change characters or settings or something, and that would annoy me, because I was sitting very much in his line of view, and the lights made it quite obvious to him that I was sleeping. Often I would wake up with pretty good timing, but since the lights were on, it was pretty darn obvious that I was asleep anyway. So obnoxious.

But the show wasn't all bad. I will say that it was pretty cool, because they served free champagne to the audience (which prompted the question, "will I enjoy it more if I had a few drinks?" to which the answer is a resounding "YES." And by enjoy it more I mean, it will help you fall asleep). The audience was also able to walk around the set and touch stuff and sit in Wallace Shawn's chair (which I did for a good 15 minutes before the audience showed up) and talk to the Sicilian himself. Also, we added another house manager to the list of house managers we really like to usher for.

So ultimately, were these things worth sitting through the show? Um. No.

PS - this is Lydia - why oh why were the reviews so good? This is definitely on my worst shows of all time list!!!

The Scene

2007-02-02T18:10:00.000-08:00

So we saw 'The Scene' at Second Stage about a month ago, and I guess it was my responsibility to blog on it and I never did. So I'm going to now. Or at least try, since it was a while ago.

'The Scene' was really quite good. It was very funny, but also rather emotionally charged as well. I thought Anthony Shalhoub (or as Anotonio the cab driver from "Wings," as I like to remember him) was incredible, and Patricia Heaton was great for the most part. Anna Camp played a very blonde girl from Ohio, and while you kind of wanted to kick her every time she opened her mouth, I think that's what they were going for.

It was definitely one of the better shows I've seen recently, and Second Stage continues to whip out solid productions. The set is very New York, and it's basically worth seeing. The ending was a bit disappointing, but it definitely did not ruin the play. The reviews for this one have been pretty stellar, so the critics agree that it's pretty darn good.

Coast of Utopia - Shipwreck

2007-01-09T20:00:00.000-08:00

"Act first, the ideas will follow" - Michael Bakunin

After seeing Coast of Utopia Part One, Voyage, I was so excited to have two more parts to go. Part Two, Shipwreck, did not disappoint in the least. The rest of the theatre community doesn't think so either and the show has already extended through May 13th, with rumors it might run through June. Several of the actors are being mentioned for the Tony's (Brian F. O'Byrne, Billy Crudup, Ethan Hawke, etc.) so it will be exciting to see what awards the show takes in.

Shipwreck is the glorious evolution of the characters that were introduced in Voyage, and it focuses on the Herzen family during rebellious and revolutionary times. We no longer see the characters as hot-blooded students name-dropping and otherwise ignoring the "souls" (or serfs) or Russia. Shipwreck takes us into the life of Alexander Herzen (Brian O'Byrne) and his wife, Natalie (Jennifer Ehle). As the show opens, we glimpse into their estate outside of Moscow where Herzen learns he has finally been granted the right to travel outside of Russia - to treat his deaf son, Kolya. Through their journeys we get drawn into the happenings of the French revolution in 1848.

Some of the previous characters drop in to share their sentiments. We see a much older Belinsky (Billy Crudup) and a still rebellious Michael Bakunin (Ethan Hawke, seen waiving the flag in the picture to the left) as well as several others. The focus also shifts to the women, whereas in the Voyage they had too little of a part to play. Jennifer Ehle shines as Natalie Herzen who is exploring the idea utopian love through her marriage and an affair with a German poet, George Herwegh. Amy Irving also shows a different side as Maria, the estranged wife to Nicholas Ogarev (Josh Hamilton).

As for the execution of the show, I found myself loving it more and more. After seeing Voyage, I became quite enamored with Jack O'Brien's direction and the stunning sets from Bob Crowley and Scott Pask as well as the powerful and moving music that accompanies the production.

Really looking forward to Voyage and I say go see any of these shows, even if you can't seem them all. You won't be disappointed!

Photos - Newsday

The Apple Tree

2007-01-08T12:57:00.000-08:00

I'm really behind on this post as I saw The Apple Tree a few weeks before the holiday. I've seen a lot of info since then about the show - mostly good, some indifferent. I think that's where I stand. For those who don't know, it's three separate stories using the same actors. We open with Adam and Eve (inspired by the stories of Mark Twain), followed by The Lady and the Tiger (story of a princess and her lover), and lastly Passionella (a chimney sweep turned glamorous movie star).

I enjoyed the show - but I felt like it was meant more for my parents that for me. It felt entirely dated and not very original. The music wasn't inspiring or memorable (no, I can't really recall any of the songs).

Kristen Chenowith gives a nice performance - and this was the first time I've seen her on stage, so I'm glad for that. I love Mark Kudisch (he can do no wrong) and this was no exception. Brian D'Arcy James also gave a lovely performance. As far as this being a show I'd recommend, ah...not so much.

Photos: nytheatre.com & Sara Krulwich/The New York Times

The Voysey Inheritance

2006-12-22T08:00:00.000-08:00

The Voysey Inheritance, adapted by David Mamet (Harley Granville-Barker's original), has been given a lovely revival at the Atlantic Theater, featuring one of my favorite actors Michael Stuhlbarg.

Set in England at the turn of the 20th century, the show opens on the lovely set of the Voysey Family drawing room. As the family livens up the space, we meet Edward Voysey, and quickly learn that this family is falling apart. In the first half of the story, Edward learns from his father that their family business of investing client's money to earn a larger profit has been a complete scam. Edward's father has been embezzling client's money for his own puposes and has in effect bankrupted his entire business. Shocking news - and a fabulous performance as the father from Fritz Weaver.

Mr. Voysey soon passes away and Edward is left to take over what's left of the business - as it's in shambles. Edward, being an honest person (a considerable thing with the way his family has been acting) tries his hardest, and works nonstop to turn the business around and earn back the money for their clients - the true way. Slowly and surely he suceeds in doing so but in doing so learns that his family has gotten quite accustomed to their comfortable living and find it hard to live otherwise. He also can't outrun the fact he must now Edward face the consequences of his father's actions - and that will certainly be prison. What a moral conflict for a man (or woman) to face...and one that Mamet is quite good at displaying.

To borrow a quote from nytheatre.com "The Voysey Inheritance shows us how simple it might be for Edward to stray from his righteous path: by keeping everything under wraps, he could just as easily continue his father's thievery instead of paying back the money—a sobering (and, unfortunately, relevant) thought in the age of the Enron and WorldCom financial scandals."

The show as a whole was really enjoyable. As I mentioned before, the acting is top-notch and Michael Stuhlbarg leads that effort. I doubt I'm the only one out there who really loves Mr. Stuhlbarg this much - I hold all other actors up to him for review - he truly amazes me each time I see him on stage. Just check reviews from shows in his past and you'll see he's become quite the critic's darling. He's quietly become one of the finest stage actors we have today. I had the pleasure of meeting him at the Drama League Awards this past May and he's incredibly kind in person.

Well - go see the show, I read that it just extended. The Atlantic has been on a role for getting shows on Broadway (Lt. of Inishmore, Spring Awakening), so we'll see where this heads next...

Movin' On Up...

2006-12-13T09:22:00.000-08:00

After the best reviews I've seen for a show since I've been following theatre in NYC, Spring Awakening has just announced that it's advance sales are nearing the $2 million mark.

Ahh...it's so nice to see this show doing well - what a breath of fresh air it has been to the Broadway community. Go get the soundtrack if you haven't already - it's a stunning reminder of the show!

...Another One Bites the Dust

2006-12-13T09:15:00.000-08:00

High Fidelity, the musical dubbed by Ben Brantley as deserving a place in his "catalog of Top 5 lists on the roster of All-Time Most Forgettable Musicals" has announced that it's closing on December 17th, having played only 14 regular performances (...tear).

Poor Will Chase, the man can't cut a break...first Lennon, now this.

Company

2006-12-12T15:23:00.000-08:00

I took a peak over at the NY Times reader's reviews on Company and wow are they polarized. Of the 16 reviews currently posted, about half of the reviewers loved the show and couldn't get enough. The other half felt disappointed and let down by this new production. I think I'm somewhere right in the middle.

The revival of Sondheim's Company is exciting news to the NYC theatre community, especially with its great reviews that just came out. It's the second production on Broadway from John Doyle, the most innovative director who brought us Sweeney Todd last year. The show is the third revival since its original staging in 1970 (Roundabout brought it back in 1996).

You may already know what Company's about but it's set in NYC and the plot revolves around Bobby (a single man unable to commit to any relationship, much less marriage), five married couples who are his best friends, and his three (yes, three) girlfriends. Unlike the typical musical which follows a book and clear plot, Company is what's referred to as a "concept musical," combining short vignettes in no particular chronological order, linked by a celebration for Bobby's 35th birthday.

John Doyle's imagining of this show, much like Sweeney Todd, leaves the actors on stage at most times during the show, playing all of their instruments. I absolutely loved this idea in Sweeney Todd, but for Company I felt it left a little of the intimacy between actors to be desired. I'll admit I've never seen the show before, and hadn't even heard the music. So, as my first exposure, I felt a little left to be desired - in terms not only of the actors but also the set, which felt entirely too stark to me. Raul does a pretty good job - but at times, I felt that the man was not acting - especially with some of his haughty poses and stares into the audience.

I was also thinking about my viewing the show for the first time - living in our society, especially NYC and having seen all of Sex and the City, I felt a bit like I had heard this all before - none of it seemed entirely new. Granted, I know Sondheim and Furth wrote this over 30 years ago, and the men were well ahead of their time.

I think I'll leave it as anyone who sees this show (as will all shows) should make up their own opinion, having been influence by all sorts of factors - but for me, I think I had expectations that were set a bit too high. I will say I can't wait to see what John Doyle does next....

Shout-out to some friends...

2006-12-12T12:06:00.000-08:00

Two friends of ours, the wonderful Michael Cuomo and Zach McCoy are appearing in a series of short plays running in NYC at the Beyond Christopher festival until 12/16 - go check them out!

NY Magazine's Culture Awards - Year in Theater

2006-12-11T10:58:00.000-08:00

Check out this list here...

I for one happen to love end of the year theatre re-caps! :)

A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant

2006-12-05T07:33:00.000-08:00

In case you didn't know...Scientology is pretty whack! And I think so even more after seeing this adorable, hilarious, and really quite frightening new show at NYTW's small theater on east 4th street.

The show is performed entirely by children, ranging in age from (and I'm guessing here) 7-12. Yes, how adorable...and I had a big smile on my face the entire time. It tells the story of the life of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, through the kids dancing, singing, and running around the stage looking absolutely as cute as possible. Along the way we learn the L. Ron is completely screwed up guy, who seemingly made up this idea of scientology when he realized that no other sort of faith or idealism could explain to him how the world works.

I learned a few things that I didn't know about Scientology (as I've tried to stay as far away from it as possible) like how expensive it is to join the church and how many people have gone bankrupt because of it. It seems like a sort of brainwashing. A scene in the show that embellished upon what must happen to senior ranking members of the church once they board L. Ron's yacht is quite amusing. Another scene towards the end, set in a courtroom, shows celebrity members of Scientology. A little boy comes out in a leather jacket, acting as Tom Cruise - with two puppets in either hand - you can only guess who these must be.

All in all, the show is hilarious - it's such a novel idea to present such a sketchy subject in this manner. Some of the kids were completely professional - not breaking any of their characters even once. Another little girl was too cute - she kept scratching her nose during her scenes and yawning....But it's quite an enjoyable night at the theater - this is a show I'd see over and over!

QED

2006-12-02T11:40:00.000-08:00

So I've been pleasantly surprised by Philadelphia theater. This is my second play at St. Stephen's Theater, and it was quite enjoyable.

QED, which does not refer to what one writes after a proof, but rather Quantum ElectroDynamics, tells the story of Richard Feynman, a Nobel prize-winning professor at Caltech who was very eclectic. It's essentially a one man play, with this guy in his office telling the audience stuff and talking on the phone, and interacting briefly with a student.

It's funny, it's interesting, and although it's another one of those kind of blatant tearjerkers, it's a bit moving as well. It's interesting to be watching a play about a Caltech professor, but it's quite entertaining. He tells all sorts of random stories and kind of has ADD. He makes decisions about life and reasons for it, and it's a pretty entertaining night at the theater. The acting was solid and the writing was good. The content was different, and I was pretty darn satisfied.

The last show I saw at this theater was "Master Harold...and the Boys," which I don't think I posted about. It also was very good. The play itself is an incredible one written by Athol Fugard dealing with race, status, power, and character in South Africa. I remember reading it and being totally moved, so I was really excited to go see it. It was definitely worth it. It's a great play, and the production was really quite good.

Floyd & Clea and some unnecessarily long bad title

2006-12-02T11:29:00.000-08:00

We usually have faith in Playwrights Horizons, so I guess even with a title like "Floyd & Clea under the western sky" or something to that effect, we decided to usher for this one.

BAD DECISION.

A couple reasons for this: 1) As ushers, we couldn't leave at intermission. 2) As ushers, we were asked to help fill the empty front row; this means I was highly visible to the actors as my headed nodded lazily and probably audible if I was snoring.

Let me tell you about this play.
Floyd is a has-been musician alcoholic who sleeps in a car in Montana.
Clea is a girl that looks like she's 12.

Floyd and Clea become friends, but it's REALLY gross, because it seems like they're more than friends.

Clea moves to California and becomes a big shot. She even uses one of Floyd's songs. Floyd is sad and misses her.

Clea's life falls apart, and she goes to Floyd to make it better.

They sing a lot, but the songs all kind of sound the same.

Floyd has an awful southern accent and spits a lot.

It kind of reminded me of a really bad hick version of Hedwig and the Angry Inch (play, not movie). Very loosely.

I will say that this play did raise some very interesting questions that definitely stimulated some thought however. These include: "Why would Playwright Horizons do this play?" "Why did a British guy decide he should play a Texan?" "This set is very extravagant. Why would they spend money on it?" "Am I supposed to clap?" "Am I disturbed because of the pedophilic undertones, or just because of the play itself?"

I'm going to go ahead and go out on a limb and say this musical is not going to be the next "Grey Gardens."

The Vertical Hour

2006-12-02T11:15:00.000-08:00

So I was in New York (this is Kevin) a couple weeks ago, and I meant to blog earlier, but I didn't. So today I'm on a little blog run. First off, The Vertical Hour.

The Vertical Hour seems like it should be awesome, huh? Starring Julianne Moore, written by David Hare (who wrote Stuff Happens). Unfortunately, it was not. I haven't read the NYTimes review yet, so this is going to be Kevin's thoughts as best as I can remember them.

So first off, the plot. So the question for this play is less, "what's the plot?" as "why did he bother with a plot?" David Hare writes basically an argument for two sides of our involvement in the Iraq war and tries to put it into a play. There really was no reason. The fact that it was an essay disguised in a play just made it annoying. The play was thin and plotless, and brought very little value to what Hare was trying to say. Julianne Moore plays this Yale professor who has very strong pro-Iraq involvement views (which was at least interesting). There are two basically pointless exposition/concluding scenes that seem like they might be interesting, but ultimately are separate from the rest of the play and are not revisited. They are apparently only there to give Julianne Moore's character some introduction. So then Julianne Moore goes to her boyfriend's dad's place. There's a big argument about the relationships and the dad (played by Bill Nighy) and his character. It's something about the boyfriend being mad because he thinks his dad is trying to seduce Julianne Moore. It's pretty lame. It's just that the Bill Nighy's character is very anti-Iraq war, and he has a debate with Julianne Moore. Yeah, that's it. So Hare, I believe, is saying some things about peace, and how it reflects lifestyles and views. But it was pretty dry for a play, and probably would have been more entertaining as a lecture.

Unfortunately, I also suffered from what I like to call the "Faith Healer syndrome." This means I stood for the first act and got an awesome seat the second act, not taking into consideration how comfortable the seat was. So yeah, I dozed. But I shouldn't have, because they were shouting on stage when I was dozing. Obviously the play was that gripping. I won't lie, I'm not a huge politico, so that might have been an issue, but if it were gripping or entertaining, I still would have enjoyed it.

So the play itself...notsogreat. As for the acting, I thought Bill Nighy was great, as was the younger male character. Julianne Moore, I guess I'll just say, was better than Julia? Barely? I don't know. I think she's a great film actress, but everything that came out of her mouth sounded kind of awkward and forced. The dialogue was so unnatural-sounding (although I'm sure the writing didn't help). She is, however, a very very nice person (I stage-doored her afterwards. I'm a tourist in NY now, I'm allowed to do that).

So all in all, I'd say skip it, even if you loved Stuff Happens or love Julianne Moore.

Kaos

2006-11-21T07:21:00.000-08:00

Oh NYTW....always keeping things fresh. The latest production called Kaos is performed entirely in Italian. It's an adaptation of a 1984 Italian film of the same name - based around four separate stories that are interweaved into the performance throughout different times.

Again, I'm going to be a bit lazy because this show's pretty difficult to explain, but here's what the NYTW blurb has to say about it: "Taking its title from the Sicilian hamlet where novelist, dramatist and short story writer Luigi Pirandello was born, KAOS blends live music, text and dance to reflect on the mysteries of Sicily at the dawn of the twentieth century, portraying common people heavily affected by poverty, violent political unrest and social change.

Kaos is inspired by four stories by Pirandello, also featured in the Taviani Brothers’ 1984 film. In L'altro figlio (The Other Son), a lonely mother is desperate to regain contact with her children in America, but unable to face her child by rape who lives just down the road. The new bride in Mal di luna (Moon Sickness) discovers that her husband goes mad with each full moon, causing her to seek solace with an old suitor. In Requiem, a clan of peasants fights a baron for the right to have a cemetery on the land they have cultivated for generations. And in Colloqui con i personaggi (A Talk with the Characters), a man converses with his late mother as he tries to make sense of the darkness that pervades his stories."

Right, so there you have the plot..but know that the show is less focused on plot than on being visually stylized. It's quite beautiful to look at and the minimalist set works nicely. I'd say this is the first work of its kind that I've been exposed to. I consider it more of a theatrical event than a play really. Perhaps this is Martha Clarke's style - I haven't seen work by her before - but am curious to see what she bring forth in the future. Again, glad to see NYTW experimenting a bit...and very much looking forward to their January production of Alan Ball's new play!!

Wrecks

2006-11-20T12:06:00.000-08:00

Ahhh. Neil LaBute....quite the prolific playwright. After living in NYC only 2 1/2 years I have seen 4 LaBute plays....yes, 4 - Fat Pig, This Is How It Goes, Some Girl(s), and now Wrecks, at the Public Theater.

I love this quote from Theatre Mania - it sums things up pretty well (err.. except for the "superior play" part): "In a way, Neil LaBute has become a theatrical brand name. Buy a ticket to one of his plays and you can count on three things: great acting, probably with some movie stardust associated with the cast; a surprise twist at the climax; and a generally superior play."

Wrecks features Ed Harris in this solo show, delivering a 75 minute monologue. As Edward Carr, Mr. Harris plays a newly bereaved widow talking through his stream of consciousness, still in the funeral home, after his wife has just died. He begins to tell of his life - starting with his childhood as an orphan and going on to live in ten or so different foster homes. Not too much fun, I can imagine. He talks of his wife and how great their time was together - he goes into specific details of their lives, and things start to seem a little too perfect for them to be true. For 65 of the 70 minutes, this man has just professed how much he loves his wife with the business and life they have built together. And then...the twist. And as much as I want to write about it - that just wouldn't be fair. So...try to see the show - or let me know and I can tell you all about...

Regardless of plot - LaBute also directed the play.... however, it's very understated, and it almost seems like Ed Harris could have directed himself most of the time. But let's talk about Ed Harris. As you probably would have guessed - he was fantastic in the role. I've really had so much respect for him as an actor for as long as I can remember, and he didn't disappoint. I started to think about how perfect the acting must be to carry a solo show - and he certainly was up to the challenge.

After seeing Wrecks, I'm curious to see where LaBute will go next. I'm still not entirely loving him as a playwright at this point but not ready to give up just yet.

Spring Awakening...again

2006-11-16T12:01:00.000-08:00

I'm going to keep this pretty short - but I was so very lucky to have seen the invited dress rehearsal of Spring Awakening on Broadway last week. I wrote a full post on the show when I saw it Off-Broadway at the Atlantic last season, so check that out if you're interested. Let me just say that this show has done nothing but get better..

The set is pretty similar, just bigger and a bit more elaborate. There have been a few songs that were cut and as a whole the show feels a little tighter. The cast is intact except for the two adults - a big improvement if you ask me....the kids remain to be absolutely amazing.

One note, I originally saw the show sitting on stage at the Atlantic (which continues on Broadway for $35). It's a ridiculously cool way to see the show - but if you see it twice, try it not sitting on stage. I was front row mezzanine and it was like seeing a new show....definitely a new perspective.

This is the one show right now that I'm telling everyone to go see - it's truly an amazing theatre experience. I can't wait for the cast recording..these songs have been in my head non-stop since last week.

Dai (enough)

2006-11-15T07:39:00.001-08:00

So I might have to eat my words a bit in this post - because I recall just a few postings ago saying that I'm tired of one-person plays and that I could do without them for a while...enter Culture Project's latest play, part of the Impact Festival, called Dai (enough). It's....you guessed it... a one-woman show...and - I really enjoyed it! Throughout the show, Iris Bahr plays ten different characters - all equally fascinating.

The show is set in a Tel Aviv coffee shop and opens with a Bahr's portrayal of a British television reporter. This reporter is producing a segment on Israeli society - and she's come to this coffee shop to try and get some insight. Through her interviews, Bahr portrays "a Latina actress, a second generation Kibbutznik, a German expatriate, a visiting yenta, a religious zealot, a Russian prostitute, a Palestinian intellectual, a female immigrant soldier, a Christian evangelist, and a Dutch rave girl." Between segments there are enormously loud sound effects that portray each of these people...in the coffee shop....as a suicide bomber comes in a I bet you can guess what comes next.

The show's central theme seems to be the bias and the focus on irrelevant details that we see in today's media. This reporter has just wandered into an Israeli coffee shop, yet meets no Israelis - may not be such a surprise, however, as Israel is quite diverse. One could only imagine what her piece would have been like. With Bahr's excellent portrayal of each character - you feel like you've seen a show with a cast of 10. She's so precise with her accents and movements and so simple in the way the scene changes. It's a powerful show, and part of the powerful Impact festival. I hope I see more one actor shows that are this moving....

The Hairy Ape

2006-11-15T06:57:00.000-08:00

"Hairy ape, hugh? Sure!

Dat's the way she looked at me, al right.

Hairy ape? So dat's me, huh"

- Yank

I recently went through a phase of reading as many plays as I could get my hands on - and one of these such plays was The Hairy Ape, by Eugene O'Neill. So, when I heard that the Irish Repertory Theater was doing a production, I jumped at the chance to see it. I have to say, I normally don't get particuarly excited for the Irish Rep, as I've seen some disappointing productions there, but this show was outstanding and I really enjoyed each minute of it.
(photo by Carol Rosegg)

The play, set in the 1920s, concerns Yank (pictured above) , a laborer in the enging room aboard an oceanliner. Yank has just convinced himself that he really matters in the world - that what he does means something to society. This all really comes together when a woman of high society visits the engine room where he works - she shoots him a terrified look and his mind goes crazy with torment. She's the rich daughter of an industrialist in the steel business and refers to him as a "filthy beast" - starting Yank's indentity crisis and the basis of the class struggle the show is built around. He leaves the ship and wanders into Manhattan, only to find he does not belong anywhere; neither with the socialites on 5th Ave, nor with the labor organizers on the waterfront. Becoming desperate, he is reduced to seeking a like-minded being in the gorilla in the Bronz zoo. Ultimately, he ends up dying after the animal's rough embrace. The play reverberate's O'Neill's theme that a capitalist society destroys the working man - certainly a hot topic in the era in which it was produced.

Even today, the play is still relevant. This production has been revived by Ciaran O’Reilly as he pays homage to the original but the real focus of the show is on image and sound. The sets are gorgeous and uncomfortable at the same time. The loud, mechanical jazz interludes during scene changes are appropriately disturbing and relevant. The acting by Yank (Greg Derelian) is top-notch and incredibly believable. I was front row, and at one point Yank was inches away from me - quite terrifying. The show is a success in almost every way.....

The Pillowman - in Philadelphia

2006-11-08T10:51:00.000-08:00

The Pillowman, by Martin McDonagh (a hero to most contemporary theatre-lovers) is one of my all-time favorite plays. I don't know if anything will ever shake me to the core, and make me feel like I first felt after seeing the Broadway production last year. The entire cast was BRILLIANT - especially Billy Crudup and Michael Stuhlbarg (my personal favorite in the show). But when I first saw the show, I didn't keep a theater blog, and I'm pretty excited to get a few thoughts down now.

So - a new production of the play is running at the Wilma Theater in Philadelphia. That's right, I actually visited Kevin's new city in order to see theater! It was a nice production, but I found myself often comparing it to the Broadway version. Saxon Palmer (recently in Measure for Pleasure at the Public) plays the main character, Katurian Katurian (that's right..) and he plays the part well. Billy Crudup was in the original cast and I think that Palmer drew a lot of comparisons to the way Crudup played the role..very affected and externally showing pain and emotion pretty heavily. The rest of the cast was nicely rounded out. I tell you though, this production made me realize how much I really admire Michael Stuhlbarg for his original role of Michal (Katurian's brother) in the Broadway version. The man is amazing and did things with that character that shook me to the core.

Well, I won't give away the plot - save to say that it's fantastic writing and some pretty disturbing stories involving children. If you can't get around to watching a production of The Pillowman - I highly suggest buying the play and reading it over and over - you won't be disappointed.

Emergence-See

2006-11-08T07:32:00.000-08:00

Well - I'm a big fan of the Public Theater, as I've written here, but I have to say I wasn't terribly impressed by their newest production, a one-man play called Emergence-See. Maybe it's because I've seen a lot of one-actor shows lately (No Child comes to mind - which blew me away..and one of the first, Bridge and Tunnel, even made it to Broadway) but this one didn't stand out or really differentiate itself. Sure, there were some good points being made - but in only and hour and a half, I was a bit bored.

Daniel Beaty wrote and stars in this new production, the story of a slave ship (aptly titled Remembrance) landing off the harbor in front of the Statue of Liberty in New York City, in present-day, 2006. Daniel portrays roughly 40 characters throughout the play but focuses in on one particular family. Concerning this family, the father has just climbed aboard this slave ship and is attracting a media frenzy. His two sons, Rodney and Freddie, are in Harlem anxiously trying to get their father downtown. Meanwhile, Beaty conveys several characters at the scene of the harbor who are confused, overwhelmed and estatic about the strange happenings.

Cut to a poetry cafe where Rodney is supposed to be performing in a competition, Beaty takes the stage as several different poets, putting forth some powerful rhymes. Tension builds as Rodney shows up to perform just seconds before everyone is about to give up (as he's been stuck down by the harbor with his father).

As the play concludes, the ship disappears and we are left with the thought to always remember (e.g. the ship's name Remembrance) about our heritage and history and not to forget how the past can affect our present.

So - the story's convoluted, the set is uneventful and the lighting is distracting. Daniel Beaty, however, deserves credit for acting his heart out and putting in some great writing. I did read some other reviews that praised everything about the show, one even went as far as to call it "the most important new American drama since Angels in America." Mmm Hmm... Well for now, I beg to differ, and I say I'll choose to stay away from solo shows for just a little while.

The Milliner

2006-11-01T08:33:00.000-08:00

I just saw the Milliner at Classic Stage Company this past week. I actually saw it on Halloween - and this is the complete opposite of what most people were probably doing that day.

The show concerns...a Milliner (hat maker)...in Berlin during the period of WWII. This particular hatmaker happens to be Jewish - but claims to be stricly German, denouncing his ties to Judaism and even getting Baptized. We also learn right away that he loves Germany - literally, this man is in love with his country.

The story floats back and forth in time, introducing us to the other main characters. The Milliner is particularly struggling with losing his mother during the war. As you can imagine, she stayed in Germany and suffered the horrors of the Holocaust. We see that they have a close relationship, as he has learned his hat-making trade from her. From this trade, he meets his wife and they seemingly have a lovely relationship...until the war. They are forced to move to England (lucky to have had the chance) where they feel isolated as foreigners, and the Milliner particularly feels like his life has ended being away from his beloved Berlin. After the war, when it's safe to return to Berlin, the Milliner goes back for a visit. During this visit, he runs into a cabaret singer he knew years earlier and the two begin an affair. Going back and forth between England and Berlin, he continues his rocky marriage and the affair. Things seem to be spiralling out of control and his mind is running away with him. In the end, all of his past and present come to a halt when he murders the cabaret singer (after she has casually made an anti-semitic remark). The play ends up where it hinted at beginning - with the Milliner facing a trial for murder.

The show has an interesting concept and I found most of it to be quite good. Parts of the second half dragged on a bit, and I could see some scenes cut. The costumes and hats were lovely. I commented to my friend that I just wanted to grab one off the stage and keep it for my own. All in all, a nice, not spectacular, but nice night at the theatre.

The Coast of Utopia - Part 1 - Voyage

2006-10-25T08:00:00.000-07:00

Well I've been looking forward to The Coast of Utopia since I started to hear rumblings of its coming to Lincoln Center during this time last year. The show opened in London in 2002 and I know a whole host of people who must be so excited it's finally here. (Probably the same people who can't wait until 2008 for Billy Elliott) I tell you, after seeing Voyage, part 1 of the three-part series, I was not disappointed! Tom Stoppard has embarked upon a momentous story - and it comes through so very well on stage.

The buzz about the show is about how big of an undertaking it is. This triology will be performed at Lincoln Center over the next six months and will feature 44 actors, playing 70 roles, and covering three decades of Russian life, history, art, culture, and ideals. The cast includes such great names as Billy Crudup (Pillowman, anyone?), Richard Easton, Jennifer Ehle (A&E's Pride and Prejudice), Josh Hamilton, David Harbour (Who's Afraid of VA Woolf?), Jason Butler Harner, Ethan Hawke, Amy Irving, Brían F. O’Byrne, and Martha Plimpton. There are even "marathon" performances in which the actors perform all three parts in one day - 9 hours of theatre! I must say I was a little intimidated - but I think it could be an exhilerating experience.

It's such a hard story to explain in terms of plot (all of those Russian names), so I think I'll borrow from the website a bit: "The first part of the trilogy, Voyage, is Stoppard’s nod to Chekhov set at the grand Russian countryside estate of the Bakunin family. Four eligible sisters are under the sway of their charismatic brother, Michael (Hawke), who interferes in their lives, while fervently seeking a greater purpose in his own. As his political and philosophical journey unfolds, Bakunin’s compatriots will include Vissarion Belinsky (Crudup), George Herwegh, Karl Marx, Nicholas Ogarev, Nicholas Stankevich, Ivan Turgenev and, of particular note, the visionary leader Alexander Herzen (O'Byrne)." So as you can see, Voyage is mostly about Michael's journey and largely focuses around his family and their estate. It's invigorating to listen to the dialogue about Russian idealism and literature as it's battered back and forth between the actors. For the three hours I sat watching the show - I was literally enthralled by what I was seeing. I immediately bought the Lincoln Center Theater Review and can't get enough of the information I found inside.

Now all I can say is....the second part, Shipwreck, can't come soon enough....Stay tuned!

Recently an interesting article came out in NY Magazine about the show. Check this out: http://www.newyorkmetro.com/arts/theater/features/23475/

Public - New Work Now!

2006-10-24T07:00:00.000-07:00

Every year the Public Theater produces a series of readings of new works (mostly in progress) called New Works Now, and they open this event to the public for free. What could be better?

(Picture from Public Theater)

Things We Want - by Jonathan Marc Sherman
This silly, amusing, play about three brothers was fun to watch but ultimately left me without much substance to ponder. The reading was directed well by Ethan Hawke and acted especially well by Josh Hamilton (Coast of Utopia), Stephen Lynch (The Wedding Singer), and Peter Dinklage (Elf, Station Agent) - three oddly-paired actors who actually played brothers pretty convincingly. The play takes place in two parts - the first Act is set on the day when Charlie, the youngest brother, comes home from dropping out of Culinary School. He finds his two older brothers at home in their apartment. Stuy is the middle brother, and his life is a waste as he spends all of his days in a haze of alcoholism and on their couch. Teddy is the oldest and seemingly has his head on his shoulders as he has built a career with his guru, Dr. Miracle. Charlie has just been broken up with by his girlfriend, Zelda, and is pining over his loss. Stuy calls over an acquaintance from the apartment building, Stella and she and Charlie seem to hit it off.

Act II opens a year later and now Teddy is the brother on the couch suffering from Alcoholism (after having his career ruined by the phony Dr. Miracle) and Stuy has his act together - arriving home with his one-year sober chip from AA. Charlie and Stella have been dating throughout the year and are celebrating their first anniversary. In another twist of events, as Charlie and Stuy are off buying groceries for the big annniversary dinner - Teddy seduces Stella (or is it the other way around?) and the two run off together. Charlie comes home, finds himself surprisingly not depressed and realizes that life is just a series of hurdles and jumps that he must get through.

The play is a windy road with many twists and turns - and an odd quick piece of dialogue when Charlie and Stella meet that reveals that the brother's parents both died committing suicide out of their apartment window (the same window, both times...). This comes back in the end several times with the brothers trying to get through the hardest parts one day at a time. I think the playwright has a bit of tightening up to do - the play could be cut down in dialogue and increased in substance, and I think no intermission is necessary. I could see it running off-broadway somewhere like Second Stage or Cherry Lane...but not much bigger than that.

Machiavelli

2006-10-21T21:16:00.000-07:00

Today I ushered for Machiavelli at the ArcLight theater which is located in the basement of an old church on the Upper West Side. Right away, walking down the stairs to enter the theater the religious art and environment seemed to influence the play I was about to see. I try to always notice the theater that I'm in and remember and special features - this one was indeed a space in which to take notice.

As for the show, it's a comedy about Nicolo Machiavelli - the man we all think of mostly for penning those famous words - "the end justifies the means." The play's author, Richard Vetere tries to alter the audiences perception of Machiavelli as a cruel man - although this is not written as a historical account. In his play, which Vetere describes as a comedy (and moments are pretty comical), he focuses mostly on Machiaveli's family life - rather than political situation or writings. Through a series of unfoldings and the ruling of Florence by several different princes, we learn that Machiavelli is quick to change his political loyalties (as one Prince after the other dies) in order to spare his family and himself. His quick wit gets him out of many tough situations.

The actors did a nice job - especially Machiavelli (James Wetzel) and his wife, Marietta (Liza Vann) and the narration in rhyme delivered by Alfonso (Lex Woutas) to introduce the play, break for intermission and ultimately conclude the series of events was quite lovely - even though I read some reviews that said otherwise.

Well, this show again satisfied my thirst for a bit of history - no matter that some of the events were fabricated. It's always interesting to see what a writer's imagination can produce in terms of a historical figure - especially Machiavelli.

Blue Door

2006-10-21T21:07:00.000-07:00

The newest play from Tanya Barfield, at Playwrights Horizons (upstairs) is Blue Door.....the story of an African American mathematics professor struggling with his own inner demons and a sleepless night in which his ancestors visit him during his insomnia. The play features only two actors - one playing Lewis, the professor (Reg E Cathey) and the other (Andre Holland) conveys several of Lewis' ancestors - from the times of slavery to the present.

The show wraps up pretty nicely while conveying its main theme - Lewis finally realizes that he cannot separate his past and history from his present day self. All of the experiences his ancestors went through helped to shape the man he has become - no matter how assimilated into white society he may have become. There are some pretty touching moments - and a fantastic debut performance from Holland, who I read just recently graduated from NYU. Cathey seems mostly comfortable in his role but struggles to bring true emotion to some of the heavier scenes. The set is minimal, and the direction pretty basic, but overall it was a nice play with good perspective from the playwright.

Birth and After Birth

2006-10-18T13:26:00.000-07:00

Someone recently asked me what my top five off-broadway theaters are, and the Atlantic certainly is on that list. (FYI the others are - in no order - The Public, Playwright's Horizons, NYTW, and Second Stage). Even when shows aren't great at Atlantic, they're still pretty good by comparison. For example, Spring Awakening (!!!) was the last show I saw there and other shows last season - Celebration and the Room and Lt. of Inishmore were all fantastic.

So the first show of their season is called Birth and After Birth, an abstract construct of a play by the Tina Howe. It begins on the morning of Nicky's fourth birthday. Nicky is the son, played by a large, grown man. The show is mainly about the interaction between Nicky and his parents - hardly the model parents for any child. Two of their friends, anthropologists fresh from travelling the world stop by for the birthday party and the show gets stranger and stranger. Several of the characters stop the action to interject their personal monologues. As a whole, it seems as if the playwright is trying to comment on contemporary parenting - but with the abstract dialogue and misleading direction - the play falls a bit flat.

Nonetheless, there were funny moments, especially from Nicky (played by Jordan Gelber) and the visiting Anthopologist wife (Kate Blumberg). I do expect that the next production at the Atlantic will be much more satisfying. ...stay tuned.

Nixon's Nixon

2006-10-02T17:18:00.000-07:00

I've become a bit of a history-junkie over the past year or so (Foreign Service, what?) so this play, all about the end of Nixon's administration, was really appealing.

Two actors play Nixon and Kissinger(Gerry Bamman and Steve Mellor), and the entire play focuses on a conversation between the two on the night that Nixon resigns from the presidency. The stage is set in a conservative room in the White House where we see Nixon animatedly acting as if he's conducting the classical music he's listening to. There's a knock on the door and in walks Henry Kissinger. The two begin to talk animatedly and re-live their times in the administration. They act out conversations between Brezhnev and Mao and it's truly hilarious to watch the actor playing Kissinger pretend to be both of these great men, while still playing Kissinger. Both of these actors have great chemistry and work well off of one another.

The show brings up some great points - especially focusing on the power struggle as Nixon resigns. Kissinger is trying to fight to stay on in the next administration and history tells us that he does stay - but the way this show is written it keeps the audience guessing. We know neither of these men are truly innocent - they've both committed crimes of dishonesty in the administration and are trying anything to hold on - when we know Nixon only falls tremendously from the position he held.

Great show - glad it's being re-staged as it's so well written and very well-acted.

¡El Conquistador!

2006-09-23T21:36:00.000-07:00

NYTW is very much my favorite theatre in NYC - more and more I love it. I always usher for shows there and the house manager is just great. This show in particular is the free-brownie show, and who doesn't love ushering for a show and then getting a brownie for free? The red velvet chairs in the theatre and the space itself just make me very happy. And their first show of the season - ¡El Conquistador! - is an entirely new concept for theatre that I've yet to see on any stage.

It's described as a simultaneous foreign film, theatre play, epic history and Telenovela (a Latin American soap opera/mini-series). The show was created on-location in Colombia, and the lead actor + director both hail originally from Colombian. The audience is greeted on stage by the lead actor - Thaddeus Phillips - who delivers an "informal prologue" telling us about telenovelas and a few other things that will be important to the story (e.g. Pony Malta drinks and specifics to the job of a doorman in Colombian cities). Most importantly (at least now looking back), he warns the audience that this story has the frivolity of classic work - such as Shakespeare - and to remember the classics when the level of frivolity gets pretty high within the story.

So, Thaddeus Phillips plays Polonio, a peasant from a rural village who decides to leave his town and chase his dream of becoming a soap opera star. He ends up in Bogota, Colombia's capital, and takes a job as a doorman. Now doormen have it pretty tough in Colombia, especially in Polonio's building. They are the only people with keys to the front door - not even the residents have keys - and they are pretty much called on by all residents at all times to bring up Diet Cokes, cigarettes, let their cars in and out of the garage, etc, etc. Poor Polonio has to cover his doorman station all alone. Just when he tries to catch up on his favorite telenovela - he can't get reception or he is constantly interrupted by any number of tenants. We are taken through his daily routine and relationship with his tenants purely through video form. All tenants have been captured on film in Colombia and Polonio is the only actor on the stage. Some pretty crazy things go on - and it gets very silly towards the end. So silly that a package is sent to the front desk, only to turn out to be Christopher Columbus' journal. The elevator opens and Polonio seems to see the ocean on the inside. It's discovered that he has this package - and one of the tenants also thinks that his girlfriend has been cheating on him with Polonio. He hires a hit man to take out Polonio. The hit man shows up as a Pony Malta delivery man - shoots Polonio (who has put a metal plate in his chest) and then turns out to be Polonio's twin brother...and so on and so forth - with much more silliness.

So my qualms with the show - I saw it in its fourth preview and it is a VERY technical show. The video elements and subtitles (did I mention the show is performed in Spanish) as well as Polonio's moving of the set piece to match the video have to be timed EXACTLY to work - and the show just wasn't there yet. It's a tough show to do with only one actor - Thaddeus really works hard and he did a good job - but it just wasn't polished. I think it could be on its way.

Overall - I LOVED the idea of the show, but thought it lacked a bit in execution. The set was under-utilized and one or more staff could have helped Polonio greatly on stage by moving things away, taking away less of the audience's focus every time a scene changed. Regardless, I applaud the creators for their effort and for NYTW for bringing this type of show to the NYC stage.

Richard II

2006-09-23T21:18:00.000-07:00

Classic Stage Company is re-imagining Shakespeare's historical play, Richard II - which I saw this past Thursday. The play stars Michael Cumpsty, who just last season played Hamlet, also at Classic Stage. He made a great Hamlet - and received many accolades for the role - making me want to see this show very much.

I didn't know anything about the story - and probably should have done a bit of research, which always helps with Shakespeare. However, it was about 2 1/2 hours long and the action probably could have been revealed in about 45 minutes..

I did just learn, after doing a quick search that this play is the first part of a tetralogy, referred to by scholars as the Henriad, followed by three plays concerning Richard's successors: Henry IV, part 1, Henry IV, part 2, and Henry V, and may not have been written as a stand-alone work. Interesting - and probably a good idea to see all of these shows. I did see Henry IV at the Public in 2003 starring none other than Liev Schreiber.

Okay - onto this play itself. The Duke of Gloucester has been killed as the show begins. Richard, the king, is thought to be the murderer - but no one will say this, obviously. Two men come before the king and Richard tries to settle the dispute over which one of these men has killed the Duke. One man, Bollingbroke has to leave the kingdom for six years and the other, Mowbray is banished forever. Richard makes a series of bad mistakes - angers the nobility - and they in turn help Bollingbroke to usurp Richard's power. As Richard leaves to monitor the war in Ireland - Bolingbroke takes over power in England. He crowns himself king Henry IV. After being imprisoned - Richard is murdered by one of the men loyal to Henry...and that's where this adaptation of the story ended. I did read that Henry repudiates the murderer and vows to travel to Jerusalem and cleanse himself of Richard's death.

So as you can imagine - this story, without a great cast, costumes, or set could be quite boring. Brian Kulick - the artistic director at CSC and the director of this show - tries hard not to let this happen. The set is FANTASTIC. It's painted with red walls (the deepest red you can imagine) and gold floors. There is a giant blown up photograph of Richard (Cumpsty) which acts as the backdrop to symbolize his kingdom. The floor is lined with red carpet - which gets rolled away to reveal turf (for another scene outside of the castle), then rolled away once more to a dirt floor to symbolize the English soil. As Richard's kingdom is tumbling, and Henry is seizing power - the giant photograph wall lowers and tumbles as dramatic music plays. We start to see the peasants in the background replacing Richard's photograph with Henry's. The costumes are impeccable. The queen's first dress is something you'd see in a design showroom. All of the men are dressed to the nines throughout the show as well. It's all these little touches that help to re-imagine the play and I think this would make Shakespeare himself proud.

The show's not great - due in part to the nature of the writing - but I give CSC and Kulick a lot of credit for their effort.

The Treatment

2006-09-23T19:13:00.000-07:00

The Treatment is Eve Ensler's new play about this traumatized military guy going through therapy. So I'm not gonna lie, I'm not a huge fan of Eve Ensler, and this kind of backed those thoughts up. I'm not going to say it was a bad play, but I was definitely underwhelmed.

The dialogue was so awkward and forced, I thought. It was presented fine. I think Dylan McDermott and Portia did a fine job (the latter grew on me; I wasn't too keen on her in the beginning). It's a very loud and forceful play, and it intends to convey a strong message. I think how I'd best describe it is that it's very emotional, but I didn't find it very moving. There was a lot of yelling, and screaming, and crying, and I thought the actors did a fine job with it. I just thought the characters were not developed enough to feel it and the dialogue was just not all that impressive. The dialogue was even kind of sedating. It was just not actiony or moving or convincing. Ultimately, I thought the message she was trying to get through could have been just as effectively conveyed if we only saw the last ten minutes of the play. For those interested, Dylan McDermott is in tighty-whities for a significant amount of time.

So if you want to see a lot of crying and yelling and screaming and hear some overextended commentary on our war situations, check it out. It's not awful, but I'm not going to tell you to run to the theater now.

subUrbia

2006-09-22T17:20:00.000-07:00

It's me (Kevin)! I'm posting! I was in New York last weekend, so I crammed in some good theater. The first of which was Eric Bogosian's subUrbia at 2nd Stage Theater. First off, I really like Eric Bogosian. And this play was phenomenal. Just totally great. This play was originally written in 1994 I think, but it's definitely been updated significantly to fit the times. In any case, let's talk about this play.

First off, you walk in, and the set is incredible. It's like they just completely put a seven-eleven into this theater. Took out the stage, and put a convenience store in. Like what. It's pretty amazing.

The play is pretty much great Bogosian. It's driven by character and dialogue - a bunch of kids hanging out in a convenience store parking lot, living life in, you guessed it, suburbia. They're looking for direction, figuring out relationships, and dealing with stereotypes and life in general. The thing I love about Bogosian's writing is that it just doesn't seem like a playwright writing about theater, but like dialogue. It doesn't seem contrived and forced, but just great. It was funny and dark and pretty powerful and a bit disturbing, and that's how I like my plays. It's just great.

The cast I was a little bit apprehensive about at first, but they definitely grew on me. Kieran Culkin was pretty much my favorite of the large, young cast. He was definitely a healthy dose of humor. I thought the males of the cast were stronger than the females. I liked Daniel Eric Gold from The Paris Letter, although Lydia thought he didn't seem natural. I also thought Peter Scanavino was quite a bit better then he was in Shining City. The direction I thought was also quite good (Jo Bonney, Eric Bogosian's wife).

So basically, the play was great. Go see it!

The Pain and the Itch

2006-09-19T10:14:00.000-07:00

Playwright's Horizons is a fantastic theatre - with great work, a great space, great house managers - overall....it's....well, great!

Their new play, the first of the season, is called The Pain and the Itch, and it's set around a family's Thanksgiving dinner. Stop and consider the title for a moment - pretty much comes right to mind that something not too pleasant is going on. Well that's about right - this isn't your ordinary Thanksgiving. I like what Charles Isherwood says in the NYT review today so much that I'm going to include it:

"During cocktails, crudités are on offer, accompanied by onion dip and assorted ill-disguised insults. The main course is turkey, basted in bile and stuffed with chestnuts, onions and long-held grievances. Side dishes include braised Brussels sprouts sprinkled with shaved almonds and hypocrisy, and cranberry sauce spiced with orange zest, racism and recrimination. Dessert is pumpkin pie of course, accompanied by lengthy discussions of pornography and disturbing hints of pedophilia. Anyone for seconds"

He sums it up right there.

I'm just going to go all out and discuss the plot - so if there's a chance you might see the show - stop here.......The play starts with a couple, the perfect, organic-living type of couple that's stereotyped so often in sitcoms and movies, discussing the events that took place in their home over a particular Thanksgiving dinner. They're talking with a man, dressed in garb that would suggest he's from the Middle East - he just doesn't seem to fit in with the picture. As they talk, he asks questions about what has happened and the scene jumps back in time to re-hash the events, all while this man is watching along the sidelines. It's very odd, because for the first half and most of the second - the audience has no idea why this man is here. We learn that this couple has a young daughter and that the husband's mother and brother and his young Russian girlfriend have all joined at their house for Thanksgiving. The two brothers talk in private about a certain inflamation that the young girl has - that they hide from her mother.

Events unravel and we learn that this is far from the perfect family - that they all have major qualms with one another. Hints are thrown in here and there about certain things - i.e. the family's nanny has diabetes and she keeps her things in the house. Towards the end - when we're still not really sure what's going on - has the daughter been abused? why are they hiding this? where is they play going? ..... everything comes to a halt and the huge secrets are revealed. These secrets are as follows....(be prepared for the craziness) - the brother's girlfriend was raped as a young girl by a group of soldiers in Russia, who gave her Chlamydia - while the wife was pregnant, she had an affair with the brother, who gave her and her unborn child Chylamydia... e.g. the Pain and the Itch. This we learn in about five minutes of dialogue....and yes, my mouth dropped. We also find out that the man watching the story unfold is the husband of the dead nanny. Throughout the re-telling of the story, the family had been insinuating that the nanny had played some part in the daughter's sickness. Unknowingly, the father had been on the phone with 911 while saying these things. The police, in turn, headed to the nanny's house - arrested her and her family - and took them away. They refused her food and drink, and because she was diabetic, she went into a coma....and passed away... Deep breaths...yes, this did all unfold, very quickly, at the end.

Well - that's the plot. The cast was mostly good - Jane Houdyshell (of Well fame last season on Broadway) was the standout. All the others seemed pale in comparison. I really liked the shock-value of the writing more than the cast, direction, or set - but overall it's a good night at the theatre - quite the social commentary...and makes me remember how good most of us really have it.....

Seven Guitars

2006-09-18T17:40:00.000-07:00

Seven Guitars is a revival of the August Wilson play now at the Signature theatre. This was the first AW play that I've ever seen - so I'm a little green as to his style but I've read that this play fits into his "Pittsburgh Cycle" which is an anthology of African American life in Pittsburgh over the span of a decade.

The story focuses around a host of characters - quite a strong ensemble cast. As it opens, we are drawn into a scene centering around the death of one of the characters, Floyd "Schoolboy" Barton. The cast of characters includes, Vera - Floyd's on-again, off-again girlfriend, her roommate Louise, Hedley - a religion-obsessed, white-man oppressed fanatic, a late appearance by Louise's niece, Ruby and lastly his two bandmates, Red Carter and Canewell (my favorite). Everyone's gathered in Vera's backyard after just coming home from the funeral.

We switch back the the present and the story unravels. We learn that Floyd has just come back from Chicago to beg Vera to come back into his life. He's pretty convincing and it doesn't help that his record is starting to really break-through and get radio play. In the three hours during which the play unfolds, we see that Floyd has done some terrible things to get ahead but ultimately pays for what he's done. The story is strung together by pieces of blues music, which I know is truly Wilson's style - it draws you in and makes you feel like you're part of that time period.

The actors were great and put so much into their performances. The audience I was with was quite receptive (minus the crying baby!) to all the little details of these performances and lavished the actors with applause at every notable occassion. The story was a bit long and slowly-paced, focusing more on the period of life and character study than placing great emphasis on plot. I suppose I'll have to do a bit more research to see if that's reminiscent of Wilson - which I strongly suspect that it is.

Interestingly enough, when I was on the subway platform late late Saturday night, Kevin and I ran across two of the actors from the show - and one of my favorites - Kevin Carroll who plays Canewell. He had his harmonica in hand (the instrument he plays in the show) and played the entire time we waited for the train - a good 15 minutes. Such energy! I was really impressed by him and loved seeing him continue his character in real life.

Bottom line - good performances, slow play, but nice commentary on the time period and African American culture.....but not sure it was worth the Brantley recommend (the pinnacle of critical success in my opinion).

Here's looking forward to more August Wilson productions and improving my knowledge of his style...

Illyria

2006-09-14T12:44:00.000-07:00

Illyria - the musical version of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night - is a show that I saw in conjunction with the New York Musical Theatre Festival this past Monday night.

It was a concert reading, meaning all of the actors perform with scripts in hand and you are required to use a bit of imagination to envision the production. I have to say, I love readings - I find them to be the purest form of theatre and just really enjoyable.

The cast is delightful. Steve Wilson as Duke Orsino is hilarious! He seems like he could have walked off the pages of a fairy tale, a la the prince in Beauty and the Beast. Jonathan Groff is great as Sebastian (it's pretty impossible not to like him after seeing Spring Awakening) and the remainder of the cast is just as great. All of the music is easy to listen to and quite funny. My favorite number was a song that Viola sings about her love for Orsino called Patience.

Hopefully this show gets staged again in full form - it's fantastic!

Mother Courage

2006-09-06T08:57:00.000-07:00

I was incredibly lucky to get my hands on tickets to (what I think is)the best show this summer - Mother Courage. For those of you who don't know, it's the second show from the Public's summer line-up of "Shakespeare in the Park." And although this isn't Shakespeare, it's still in the park, and it's every bit as magical.

Where to begin - oh, probably with the fact that the show stars Meryl Streep, which is really enough to get me to the theatre for anything. This was the first time I've seen her on stage, and wow was it worth it. She co-stars with Kevin Kline and a cast of other very talented actors.

This version of Mother Courage was translated by Tony Kushner. I had lost my faith in Tony after the oh-so-disappointing Munich last year - but he really delivers here. George Wolfe directs masterfully - and Oskar Eustis is officially my favorite artistic director.

The story centers around, of course, Mother Courage - Bertolt Brecht's famous character who is fighting for survival with her three children during the Thirty Years War. She travels back and forth throughout Eastern Europe during the war selling goods to everyone she comes across. The war is both good and evil for Mother Courage - it provides her a living but ends up taking all of her children from her. I found the story extremely poignant for today's political situation, strikingly so to Brecht's story which takes place hundreds of years ago.

I was amazed by Meryl Streep's energy throughout the entire three-hour play. She prances about the stage, sings lovely songs, and never misses a beat. It's the perfect balance of technical perfection and impulsive detail. I can't say enough good things - I only wish everyone could have the chance to see it.

The Stone Carver

2006-08-20T11:28:00.000-07:00

Well, let's just say it's been a slow summer for NYC theatre - and this show is no exception. The Stone Carver, at the SoHo Playhouse is a show that actually ran for the first time over ten years ago with a different title, and was directed by Doug Hughes (one of the "hot" directors right now, most known for Doubt), interestingly enough. It's taken all that time to get the show to NYC - probably the pinnacle of its run.

You wouldn't know it from the title, but the show is actually centered around the topic of eminent domain. Set entirely in a kitchen, we are drawn into the life of an elderly stone carver (played by Dan Lauria better known as the father from The Wonder Years), his son, and the son's fiancee. As the show opens, we see this stone carver shoot at someone who tries to enter his property. This someone turns out to be his son, who he hasn't spoken to in over five years. The son brings his fiancee for the first time to meet his father. We learn that their real intention here is to convince the old man that he must give up his house. This is the last day before it is about to be bulldozed by the state to make way for a new road which will be a freeway exit.

The three of them exchange many words to each other throughout the bulk of the play - since the father and son are Italian, the dialogue is sprinkled with Italian phrases. I do have to say that in most cases hearing bits of Italian thrown into conversation can feel overdone, and it has certainly been used tremendously in the past. Here, though, Dan Lauria seems to bring a nice new energy to his role - I really appreciated what that he did as much as he could with what he had to work with. We learn that the father and son had a rough childhood together - never getting along. The old man's wife has passed away several years ago and since that time, a huge rift has grown between he and his son. There's one absurd part of the show where they stage a boxing match in the kitchen; it lasts for about 10 minutes and during that time the fiancee bangs a metal spoon against a pan about 20 times - ANNOYING to say the least. But that's probably the nicest compliment I could give to this actress who played the fiancee. She was really awful - I think someone off of the street could act better than this woman.

Regardless, the play did have some relevant points. Growing up in VA, I can remember several people's properties being seized by the county or state to make way for new roads. It's a terrible situation to be put in - and worse, one that you have no control over. I sympathized greatly with this old man, this stone carver, and understood that his entire life and all of his memories (esp of his wife) were centered around this home he had built. I just wish, however, that all of the scenes I had to endure to get to the meaningful moments would somehow have been better structured and better directed.

All This Intimacy

2006-08-11T04:50:00.000-07:00

The current show at Second Stage Uptown plays like a sitcom. All This Intimacy is the story of one man who gets three (yes..three) women pregnant at the same time. Sounds like a sticky situation, huh? Yep - that's about right. This new play comes from playwright, Rajiv Joseph - whose previous show, Huck and Holden, I saw at Cherry Lane Theatre a few months ago. (That was a very different type of show, about a young Indian boy trying to adjust to being a student in America.)

The play starts, and we immediately meet the main character, Ty, whose life seems to be just about perfect. He's just had his first volume of poetry published and it's doing extremely well. Because of this, he's offered a job teaching a class on poetry at Columbia. He's also got a beautiful girlfriend whom he "claims" to love very much. At 30 years old, he seems to have things pretty much in line.

And cut to the drama.... Through a series of flashbacks and flashforwards, we learn about the twisted goings-on of the leading man. Ty begins to have an affair with his next door neighbor - a 40-something married woman with an adopted child. He also begins to fool around with one of his students - all the while still being with his girlfriend. And this is how Ty gets himself into big trouble. Somehow all three women manage to find out about each other and things turn pretty badly in the end of the show. Two of the women end up keeping the children - but Ty never gets to meet them. I personally was happy to see the show with a less than happy ending.

The comic flair of the writing and timing of (most of) the actors seems to work pretty well for this show. I really enjoyed Thomas Sadoski as Ty - thought he had great delivery and was very believable. Again, I can see him being on the next Everybody Loves Raymond or something on CBS - but alas... The women were all three mediocre - and some parts were better than others. My friend Alison seemed to love the girl who played the student - Krysten Ritter - and her credits list her as a character on the WB show, Veronica Mars - so maybe she's used to this type of "TV" style theatre. All in all, it's a cute show that's good fun for a nice summer night - nothing more, nothing less.

Amajuba - Like Doves We Rise

2006-08-01T18:07:00.000-07:00

The current show at 45 Bleecker, Culture Project is a show featuring tales of South Africa, called Amajuba, Like Doves We Rise. All of the performers are originally from South Africa and that is where the show was actually born. It passed through the Edinburgh Festival and now is here in New York.

The five performers on stage are really very powerful and absolutely passionate. Each tells a personal story intertwined with South African song and dance. They give so much energy during the performance that you can tell it's a huge workout for each show. I personally had wished to learn a bit more about each of the actors - the stories have not stuck with me that well. But perhaps that's not what they were going for. The show really made me examine how lucky I am to have been born here in the US and how privaleged I am.

Tarzan

2006-07-25T21:19:00.000-07:00

Okay, okay. I did it. I decided to go and see Tarzan. Now I have been conspicuously absent from the blog for the month of July, but I've been in Japan for a few weeks (and the only theater I saw there was a pretty cool Kabuki play, and ads for musicals with all Japanese casts. Like a Japanese Simba in the Lion King [or rather, the Rion King], and Asian Mark and Roger. It was weird). Now I'm back, and I'm writing about Tarzan, which I saw before I left.

Before I go on about this much anticipated post, I must tell you that I am moving from New York next week, which is very sad. But, I do plan on coming back to watch some theater, so you'll still hear from me I'm sure. And I can give you some feedback on Philly Theater too...

So here goes. Tarzan. Okay, I'm not going to say it was good, because that would just be ridiculous. But, I thought it was going to be REALLY BAD, and it was kind of fun. Okay, it was a little ridiculous. But let me discuss.

The opening: Really awesome. Shipwreck scene was cool. Definitely the best part of the show, and probably worth a $20 front row ticket.

The rest, less awesome. A bunch of people swinging in really awful costumes. These costumes can best be described as, um, fringey? Yeah, they were just ripped up colored fringe on people being monkeys. They did swing a lot. And go into this big green background. Which was kind of cool for the first few minutes.

The music. "You'll be in my heart" is still catchy, but it sounds funny on Broadway. Phil Collins songs are not showtunes.

Josh Strickland - flaming and manorexic. You'd think Tarzan'd have some meat on him. Yeah, no. But it's funny. Especially his monkey slapping things. And his curtain call. whewf! Pretty good voice though. And quite a set of pearly whites for an ape-man.

The first act - long and not real exciting.

Kind of racy for a kids show. Like, um, monkey, stop playing with Jane's chest. Thanks.

Really glitzy and expensive, not great, but really, not like drop dead awful as I was expecting. There were a couple fun scenes, and at some point you kind of even get into it. But I'm not going to tell you to spend $60-100 to go see it.

School of the Americas

2006-07-21T18:49:00.000-07:00

I love the Public Theatre - I really can say that I have never been truly and absolutely disappointed with any of their productions. Each season they have such a great selection of shows and I'm bound to get excited about more than one of them. This season, the first show that popped into my head when I saw the list was School of the Americas - how exciting - a play written by the screenwriter of The Motorcycle Diaries, one of my all-time favorite films. I also love the lead actor, John Ortiz, who I admire so much for his role as Jesus in The Last Days of Judas Iscariot a few seasons ago at The Public (see, they can do no wrong). Needless to say, I'd been looking forward to this show for months.

And then the time came to finally go see it. I saw it about a week after it had opened - and inevitably saw and read some of the reviews - which I really need to stop doing. They were mediocre at best - and set my spirits a little lower for the show than I had hoped.

Anyway, the premise is about Che Guevara (a man I really admire - and no, not in the I want to buy a t-shirt with his face on it kind of way) in his last days in Bolivia - right before he reaches the end of his life. He's being held by CIA-operatives in a small run-down schoolhouse in a rural town in Boliva. We are introduced to a schoolteacher there, Julia, who we realize is obsessed with the idea of Che and will do everything she can to meet and talk to him while he is being held in her school. She convinces the soldiers to let her have a few minutes alone with Che - during which most of the play takes place. Their conversations focus on his life and his idea that he is a failed man, unable to help the world anymore. He still has a fighting spirit, and a hell of a lot of pride - but that doesn't stop us from seeing that he is really beaten down and has lost a lot of his spirit. They talk a great deal about idealogy and the way the world should be - all nice sentiments. But we know what happens. We know that Julia is in love with Che - she can't have him - but she can provide him some final solice while he is being held captive. In the end, he's taken down and murdered by the CIA operatives, right there in Bolivia. Julia seems completely devasated, all at once unable to go on. But then we see the fighting spirit come back alive in her - she talks of re-building her school and her town, making it better for her beloved neighbors and countrymen. That's what I love about the story of Che - no matter that we're seeing him in his last days, he still gives everyone he meets, or everyone who hears his story a little bit of the revolutionary spirit. The play was a bit disappointing - but even sitting here writing this I'm starting to realize that we're supposed to take a little bit of Che with us - and that's the whole point of re-telling his story.

It's worth going to see the show - John Ortiz is great as Che and if you are an Arrested Development fan, get this, Patricia Velasquez, who plays Marta on the show, stars as Julia - her first stage appearance. If you can't see the show - watch the Motorcyle Diaries - or just go to wikipedia or something and learn a little more about Che Guevera - he really is an inspiration, especially in our political world today.

No Child...

2006-07-16T09:54:00.000-07:00

I have this bad habit of getting excited for shows and then being really let down (i.e. Shining City, Three Days of Rain, Rabbit Hole...I could go on and on). Lately, I've tried to set my expectations a bit lower in the hopes that they will get met. With No Child, my expectations were met and surpassed to the highest degree. I have not been this pleasantly surprised by a show in as long as I can remember. I also ended up giving the show a standing ovation - which I hardly ever do, except for some of my all time favorites.

Well the show is performed solely by Nilaja Sun - who plays about 10 different characters. I'm sure you can guess that by it being called "no child" the show probably has something to do with the "no child left behind" program. Yup, you're right. The show is centered around Ms Sun's experience teaching at Malcolm X high school in one of the poorest neighborhoods of the Bronx. The school is given a grant by the city to hold a special summer theatre program, and Ms Sun is brought on to teach this. She's an in-and-out of work actress who takes on this teaching role to pay her rent - but didn't really imagine what she was getting herself into. So the show begins with Ms Sun acting as the narrator - the school custodian. We then get to meet the entire class as she acts out scenes as about 10 different students - amazing! This woman can turn on a dime from playing a tough African American young boy to a scared Hispanic girl - it was really incredible, her technique. So she takes us through the ups and downs of teaching these kids. They study an older play about Australian inmates and try to find parallels with their lives. In addition to studying the play, each of the kids takes a part and plays it in the class production put on at the end of the program. Near the end of the story, we learn that the janitor dies and the play is dedicated to him, the lead of the play's brother gets shot days before the play is to be performed, and lastly that one of the girls is pregnant. But with all these sort of cliche moments, Ms Sun really brings to life her characters and the story - it was really remarkable and highly recommended.

Shakespeare in the Park - Macbeth

2006-07-07T04:51:00.000-07:00

Who doesn't love Macbeth? It really is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays - I suppose that's because most high school english programs make you study it inside and out - and my high school was no different. But it's even better when this show is performed outdoors at the Delacorte theater for the Public's Shakespeare in the Park.

I'm a little late in posting, and the show has already closed - but it was a nice production. Liev Schreiber starred as Macbeth and features Jennifer Ehle (from A&E's Pride and Prejudice) as Lady Macbeth. I thought the two had great chemistry - not to mention great costumes. The three weird sisters were delightful - a nice new take on some of the imagining of the sisters that I have seen before. Some of the staging could have used a little work - and more elaborate sets would have been appreciated. However, some of the last scenes, especially as Macbeth is about to die were really powerful - the director, Milos Forman, gets credit for that - but if only we had seen some of that same imagining towards the beginning of the show. Suffice to say, this was a well done production of a great play and a beautiful night in the Park.

Up next in the park, Mother Courage with Meryl Streep and Kevin Kline (who just recently replaced Christopher Walken) - the buzz is that people are expected to camp out overnight (what??!!) for the free tickets the Public hands out....we will see!

A House In Town

2006-07-06T04:39:00.000-07:00

When will Richard Greenberg write a play that actually captivates me? I'm starting to think the answer to that question is never! This season of Greenberg started with Naked Girl on the Appian Way and the uber-disappointing Three Days of Rain (with Julia Roberts). This last play of his busy season, A House in Town recently opened at Lincoln Center. I haven't ever seen Take Me Out performed, but I have a feeling this is the only one of his plays that I would like the least bit.

For a play that's only 90 minutes long, I expect to stay wide awake and engaged the entire time - I mean really, 90 minutes is a pretty small period of time. Well, let's just say for this one, it was really tough, and I do mean excruciatingly tough to keep my eyes open - and I wasn't the only one, everyone around me was doing the same thing. I think the problem is that Greenberg writes his plays focusing so much on his dialogue, and very little on action. Sometimes this works, in my experience with his plays, it usually doesn't.

Alright, onto the plot. The play is set in the 1920s in Chelsea - on "millionaire's row." The main characters are a couple - Amy (Jessica Hecht) and Sam (Mark Harelik) and their two friends + a young man named Christopher, who lives in the neighborhood. Well, we learn that things aren't as great as they may seem in the roaring 20s. Amy and Sam have been trying unsuccessfully to have a child, having given up a few years ago. Amy thinks that she may be pregnant, goes to the doctor (her good friend) and is told she has nothing to worry about. It turns out that she has only a few months to live, but everyone has been keeping this from her. In the last few days of her life, she and Sam have a huge argument, and she makes him confess that he once had a mistress and their young neighbor, Christopher, is his son. Hmm...tough break on Amy's part. Well, she throws him out, and lights down we see the play come to a close. So you might have read this and said, "OK, interesting plot, I can see myself liking this show." Well, think again. In the 90 minutes in which the show develops, most of the plot points come out in the last 10 minutes - so the majority is slow and dragging. I've heard a lot of people say how much they like Jessica Hecht as an actress - I, for one, think she always looks weak - as if a light breeze could come across the stage and just blow her over, but that's just me.

Well - let's see what develops next from Mr. Greenberg...I agree with Isherwood of the NYT that he may be one of the most over-hyped playwrights of the moment.

Satellites

2006-06-30T22:26:00.000-07:00

This was a pretty buzzed about show, what with Sandra Oh and all. Unfortunately, it was also a very annoying, frustrating, not particularly entertaining or enlightening show. And I like Sandra Oh. And Asians on stage in general.

This show was about race and discrimination. It didn't subtly make any surprising or enlightening statements about race, it just kind of shoved things that weren't really surprises in your face. And it was annoying. Just like every single character in the play. So here's the deal. An interracial upper middle class couple have a child. The mother (Sandra Oh) is Korean, the father is black. The black father is from an adopted family, and thus has a ne'er-do-well white brother. The Korean mother also didn't really know her parents. They want to raise their child so she knows her background, so they pick a mostly black neighborhood in Brooklyn and hire a grandmotherly Korean nanny. As the play ensues, we see the black father having prejudices against other blacks, and the Korean mother against another Korean. It becomes a class and age discrimination. And the villain, or the most villainous or the most looked down upon, is the white male. I've had some great discussions on the power play based on gender, class, and race, but this show just didn't play it right.

However, as I said before, the show just kind of shoves it in your face, and not in a way that makes you think or enjoy it, moreso in a way that just kind of annoys you. Every character is annoying and unreasonable. They seem to be smart characters but just seem so clueless that's it's unbelievable. Each one is basically trying to throw themselves the biggest pity party ever, and instead of pitying any of them, I really just wanted to throw rocks at them. It was that annoying.

I think the cast did a fine job for the wholly unlikable characters they had to work with. I think the sets were pretty darn spiffy, and they flowed well - kind of like cameras panning through rooms in a house. The show, however, just didn't seem to bring me anywhere or tell me anything or make me leave the theater feeling fulfilled or satisfied in anyway whatsoever. I think the show was trying to say something, or make some sort of statement, I just think there was a better way to present it and a better one to make.

Arabian Night

2006-06-30T21:54:00.000-07:00

So now I'm the one that's behind in posting. But Spring Awakening just inspired me to post, even though I don't get to post for any shows that were nearly as good as it. But here goes anyway. We saw Arabian Night a few weeks ago at the Classic Stage Company. I'm going to give it a pretty neutral rating. Partly because we weren't totally sure what it was about, but it had a really cool set, and it was staged pretty neatly.

So basically the show is set in this apartment building, in which the water is turned off, and everyone is really hot (temperature-wise). One girl is like really loopy, and one guy becomes a genie, and one guy has a lot of sex with women who aren't there, and one guy is the narrator/building manager. It kind of shows these people intermingling, and somehow it melds into these people walking into like Arabian tents, and genies in bottles, all while being in this apartment building. It was a little weird. But it wasn't bad.

All the dialogue was kind of in third person style, where they don't actually speak to each other, but rather narrate what they are doing. This annoyed the hell out of me in "Apparition" (that might be my most-mentioned show in this blog, and I saw that before we started posting. Let me remind you if you've forgotten: WORST SHOW EVER). But in this production, I think it worked. Maybe because there was action.

As I mentioned previously, the set was pretty neat; it was kind of this big apartment building built of pipes and lights and stuff. It was very sparse, but the way the rooms/balconies/elevator etc were laid out worked well, and it was pretty neat.

The cast wasn't bad, the show wasn't bad. So basically what I'm trying to say is that it wasn't a bad night at the theater, but it wasn't anything to write home about. Or write on a blog about. Sorry this posting kind of sucked.

Spring Awakening

2006-06-26T11:03:00.000-07:00

I adored this show - simply adored it. This is the first show in quite some time that I've wished had never ended - during the last song, I literally was sad that this two hour event was coming to a close.

Spring Awakening is a new musical playing at the Atlantic Theatre (their first ever musical!) with music composed by Duncan Sheik (yes, the Duncan Sheik you may remember back in the day for the song, "Barely Breathing") and book and lyrics by Steven Sater. Apparently, the two met while meditating at a Buddhist temple.The musical is an adaptation of the play by Frank Wedekind from the late 1800s and is directed by Michael Mayer (known for Thoroughly Modern Millie). Back in the day, this story of young love and exploration into sex, masturbation, and themes of rape was quite scandalous, and it didn't get produced until the early 1900s - several years after it was written. Today, the themes are a bit less shocking but just as powerful.

A cast of very young actors play the German schoolchildren in the musical. They sing of their oppression by their parents, school teachers, and society in general. This is just about the age where kids start to discover their hormones and each other - what a feeling! The leads, Melchior and Wendla fall in love and have several beautiful scenes together. Moritz, Melchior's good friend at school goes through an especially hard time and his life ends in disaster. All of the other young boys and girls complement these relationships wonderfully. As they sing, they pull microphones out of well-stashed places in their costumes - they begin to sing and the music is completely contemporary - whereas the text they've been delivering is straight from Wedekind's original play from the 1800s. It's a nice combination that in theory wouldn't seem to work so well - but Michael Mayer + Sheik and Sater have turned this into a fantastic piece. There are several very energetically choreographed numbers that are particularly fun.

Here's something important - I chose to take Atlantic up on their "theatre for the price of a movie" special $10 tickets, and get this - you get to sit on stage. When you enter the Atlantic, you see that it's a pretty intimate theatre (a renovated church) with a small stage. We sat on the side of the stage and I noticed that there were certain chairs in all of the rows without numbers. Of course, as you can imagine, the actors use these chairs during almost all of the scenes. Sitting here, I felt like I was really a part of the show, without feeling awkward. It was one of the best theatre-going experiences I've had in a long time. There's talk of this show transferring to Broadway - but I say get the $10 tickets while you still can and enjoy it in this lovely space.

Faith Healer

2006-06-25T07:52:00.000-07:00

Kevin and I finally got around to seeing Faith Healer last night at the Booth Theatre. We went the affordable way and bought standing room tickets - my first experience doing so. I have to say that at the Booth, standing room isn't bad at all, it's actually quite good. We made the mistake of grabbing two orchestra seats after intermission, and both being extremely tired, drifted a bit through the last two monologues of the show - so here's the best I can recount.

Faith Healer, if you don't know, is a play performed entirely in monologue form - four monologues delivered by three actors. Ralph Fiennes (one of the best actors of our time) plays Francis Hardy, the illusive title character of the show, the Faith Healer. He opens the show with the first monologue - starting by speaking what I thought was a foreign language or some sort of jibberish - but what turned out to be the names of towns in Scotland and Wales, over and over. He began to recount the times he spent travelling between these towns "performing" his gift of healing on the less fortunate in each place. Frank tells of his manager, Teddy, and wife, Grace and the experiences they've had while travelling and faith healing. Frank has a commanding presence on stage - not commanding in the sense of powerful, but mysterious and most definitely narcissitic. His confidence in himself and his gift, although recounted as shaky at times, comes forth very strong here.

As the next monologue begins, we see Cherry Jones playing Grace, Frank's wife. She appears sitting in a chair, cigarette in hand and whisky in her glass not too far off. She's crying, and appears completely lost in her own world of sorrow and confusion at what her life has become. Grace goes on to tell the audience of her travels with Frank and Teddy and how it must have felt to be the wife (usually referred to as mistress) of such a man. She explains that the couple had several failed attempts at a child, and lastly a stillborn baby as their final attempt (or did they? This remains one of the play's several unanswered questions). Grace seems tormented, but as much as she tries to share it with the audience, things seem completely bottled up inside of her own head. I, like many of the other reviews I've read, have to say that Cherry was miscast in this role. Coming from seeing her most recently in Doubt, she's much too strong of a woman to play what I see as the weak, beaten-down role of Grace. Also, please send this woman a decent dialect coach - her accent was quite terrible. However, I do love Cherry and can't wait to see what she's in next.

The third monologue belongs to Ian McDiarmid - and this man is marvelous, having recently earned a much-deserved Tony award for this role as Teddy, Frank's manager. He charms us by recounting his days as manager of several other quirky acts - his dog that plays the bagpipes, and a woman who can charm over 120 pigeons into doing whatever she asks. Teddy's stories make us laugh at the utter ridiculous of his life - seeing how happily he recounts these memories....until, he begins to talk of his days with the Faith Healer - whom he describes as "of mediocre talent at best." Teddy describes his time with Frank and Grace, and begins to lose his humor when talking of Grace's incident with losing her child. These three certainly did go through some terrible times together. Seems as if Teddy had taken quite a liking to Grace, who knows if he once was in love with her or not? Ian left the stage with thunderous applause - what a welcome monologue he had just delivered.

Ralph appears one last time as the Faith Healer and we see that this moment he is recounting is simply for the stage - he is living in the moment he is talking to us on stage. He recounts the difficulty in going back to Ireland and the events of one certain night with four Irish men and his attempt to try and perform his talents on them.

The show raises lots of questions that ultimately remained unanswered. As I left the theatre last night, I thought I had missed some of these answers, but I've come to realize that this is how the playwright, Brian Friel, has structured this piece of work. So that we ask ourselves the sort of tough life questions that can't always be answered - always searching for those answers. I think Faith Healer is a respectable piece of theatre, possibly not the most enthralling work, but certainly worth seeing three talented actors deliver monologues. Especially because we don't see this type of show performed very often at all. As I read in another review, don't be put off by not seeing these three actors on stage together - until the curtain call that is. This plays nicely on one of the major themes of the show - "that no matter how closely connected our lives are, our memories of and feelings about that shared reality are forever separate and apart."

The Water's Edge

2006-06-22T10:45:00.000-07:00

This play was all right. We saw it on opening night, which was pretty fun. There were a few cool people there, but not too many. Among them, we had Cynthia Nixon, Lynn Redgrave, Eric Bogosian, and a bunch of Second Stage actors. No Meryl Streep.

The play itself I thought was pretty good. Nothing stunning, but definitely not bad. I kind of liked it. It helps that we were told it was based on a Greek play, as the show really unfolds into a very Greek tragedy. The show basically tells about this guy who left his wife and kids seventeen years ago and comes back with his girlfriend to try and get his house.

So the show was pretty good, it had some funny moments, and I enjoyed its darker ending. The cast was decent. Kate Burton was pretty good, but the girl who played the girlfriend needs to learn how to use inflection and talk naturally (i.e. "I..I..I..." should not sound like "aye aye aye!"). But she was whoa bosomy.

So I would say the show is recommendable, but not on the top of the list. Like go see it if you feel like it, but there's no need to run to it.

Pig Farm

2006-06-22T10:38:00.000-07:00

Okay, so Lydia and I are both slacking on postings. I think it's the heat. In any case, we saw Pig Farm a couple weeks ago, and it was great. It's by the writer and director of Urinetown, which is an incredibly wonderful and hilarious show. And this show was hilarious in the same ridiculous style.

Basically the show tells the story of a man and a wife on a pig farm with a kid who is working for them. The pig farm gets audited by the government and chaos ensues. It's basically great.

The show starts out a little slow, but it's still funny, and by the end we were both like laughing so much it hurt. It helped that there were these two little old ladies next to us that were basically falling off their chairs laughing. It was great. The ending is phenomenal. It was a little tough, because the main actress on stage was pretty much laughing the whole last scene as well, when she was supposed to be crying.

I thought the cast was great, a little less impressed by the main guy, but very impressed by Logan Marshall-Green (trey in the OC). And of course Dennis O'Hare can do no wrong.

So if you're looking for a good laughing night at the theater, go see this show.

I'm really behind - summary of several shows..

2006-06-19T10:24:00.000-07:00

So time has been getting away from me lately and I've been so behind on posting - I think Kevin will stop letting me be his blog partner if I don't post soon, so here goes.

First, we saw Some Girl(s) at Lucille Lortel a few weeks back before it opened. I read the reviews and agreed with them - the show is pretty mediocre. Basic premise - "Guy" - Eric McCormack, is a man about to get married who goes back to four of his ex-girlfriends to try and make amends before the wedding. Eric doesn't have to stretch himself too far here in this role. His portrayal of Will in Will and Grace comes across the same here, except he's playing a straight, not gay man. The women of the cast are a pretty nice ensemble. Brooke Smith was the weakest, so it's a good thing she came on stage first. I remember hoping that her scene would end soon. Fran Drescher is actually a stand-out (if you can stand the toned-down Queens accent) in which she plays a professor with whom Eric had a fling. Maura Tierney is the most believable ex-girlfriend. For a moment I was hoping for a picture-perfect ending but "Guy" really screws things up in the end for everyone. As a woman, I really left this play a bit angry at men in general. I guess it can be said that both men and women really know how to screw up relationships, but here the emphasis is completely on men. For getting so much hype, this show was really only okay for me. I'm still not sure how I'm feeling about the playwright, Neil Labute. I've seen Fat Pig and This Is How It Goes, from last season. Seems like all of his plays have big name stars for really mediocre writing. It'll be interesting to see some more of his work in the future.

Second show is Stuff Happens at the Public. Wow. What a show. Absolutely. Fantastic. It's a poignant look at the Bush Administration from the start of Bush's first administration through current events happening up to today. David Hare, a brit (known also for his screenplay, The Hours), has written the play. His voice seems so accurate and so angry in many instances that you forget he's not American, at least I did. So the play is set behind-the-scenes showing us the intimate conversations of the Bush Cabinet - especially Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and Colin Powell. It rehashes all of the events that have happened over the past 6 years or so. I should say that it's a very powerful to hear all of these happenings rehashed in a 2 hour play. For myself, there was a lot of anger at the events of the Bush administration and the situation our country is in to this day. A very smart powerful piece of theatre - whatever your political viewpoint, I say go see it...now...before it closes.

The third show that I saw is titled In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer at the Connelly Theatre. It was presented eloquently by the Keen Company. The play is set during Oppenheimer's security clearance hearing with the Atomic Energy Commission. It's set in 1954, the height of the Red Scare and McCarthyism. As you can imagine, this clearance hearing seems rather ridiculous. Questions are thrown back and forth from the attorneys and witnesses are brought in for accounts of the past. The play centers around its dialogue. There is very little action except for the coming and going of witnesses. But I must say that for three hours, I was enthralled with the words going around the stage. The end result shows us that Oppenheimer was denied his security clearance, but has become one of the most respected figures of his day. It just goes to show how heavily certain political viewpoints can bias our country. I'd say check this show out as well!

Burleigh Grime$

2006-06-09T19:25:00.000-07:00

So here's a first. I may actually be posting this before the show I was at actually ends. Yup, that's right folks. We left at intermission. This is the first time I've ever done this. But we decided we'd rather be walking home in the rain than sitting in a comfortable theater watching this show. In fact, I'd rather be cutting my arm off with a rusty spoon than watching this show. Let's put this in context. I stayed through the entirety of "Good Vibrations." I turned to Lydia about 15 minutes in and said, "I think I liked 'I Love You Because' better..." About 30 minutes in a cell phone rang, and I turned to Lydia and said, "Oh, that helps." Yeah, it was bad. No, it was worse than bad. It was awful. Wait, wait - MIND-NUMBINGLY AWFUL. Good.

I don't even know where to begin. The writing was awful. And the staging. And the acting. Okay, so it was about this bad man on Wall Street who was in cahoots with a TV reporter. This heart-of-gold assistant wants to get to the bottom of the fraud. I don't know what happens next. I should have stayed. Ouch. My brain just hit me for thinking that.

So the jokes were really bad, they were just put in randomly, and they weren't funny. And lines that were supposed to be funny were delivered really badly, with really, awk, ward pause, s. Oh, and there was music! Music written by David Yazbek, who is a respectable Broadway composer. So in the middle of a scene, music would start, like they were supposed to sing, but they really didn't. Instead, they like spoke in rhythm, or spoke during breaks, or just seemed really awkward presenting bad dialogue with music in the background. It was like watching a puppy drown and not being able to help it. Of course, instead of singing, they would dance. And not like, oh cool, good theater dancing. No, like junior high dancing where the kid with really bad BO is trying to dance with the girl who's four inches taller than him, but they're trying to impress everyone by doing a spin, no, a turn. While they're talking about trading stocks or something.

There was this line in the description online that said, "partial nudity." Not even that could redeem it. It was this really awkward scene where this 40 year old stripper is dancing on a table in a bikini while three guys are talking about something which I don't recall but probably did not advance the plot or provide entertainment of any sort. It was awkward. By the way, the stripper also plays an assistant who dances with a coffee pot. That's one of those roles that don't gender profile and aren't demeaning at all. I think she had a line. Oh yeah, because she also played the bitchy, spoiled (unfunny) wife.

So if you don't know, the show is playing at New World Stages, formerly Dodger Stages, which is like a 5 theater complex of off-Broadway shows. One of them there is really good ("Altar Boyz"). Unfortunately, that show does not have an intermission so we couldn't hop into it. And Lydia says you can't hop into theater anyway. Psh.

It's times like this where I wish this blog had more than our three readers, all of whom are not based in New York City, because then I would feel like I am contributing to society by saying DO NOT WASTE YOUR LIFE OR MONEY BY SEEING THIS SHOW. Unless you overdosed on Prozac and you need something to bring you down.

The Busy World Is Hushed

2006-06-06T21:34:00.000-07:00

So this was an interesting play. We saw the first preview of this one, which Lydia doesn't enjoy, but I really do. I think it's a pretty special thing to be the first audience to ever see a play shown to the public, and while some of it might still be a little rough, I think if you enjoy it at that point, it's much more telling about the play. And I really rather enjoyed this play.

Again, it was first preview, and Jill Clayburgh stumbled about her lines a bit, but I thought it was still pretty solid. There were some stretches that were a bit cheesy and awkward that could have been cut, but there was also an audience post-show discussion with the playwright, the director, and the artistic director that really put some of the more jarring or interesting lines into perspective.

The play basically featured Jill Clayburgh as a widowed minister who has turned to God after the death of her husband and raises a son who is a free spirit. The son has hit the age of his father when he died, and is trying to learn more about him. Hamish Linklater comes in to work for Jill Clayburgh in writing a new book about a newly discovered Gospel. The play progresses and shows the impact that each character has on the relationship between the other two, and it is really quite interesting.

I really enjoyed the play. Again it had some points that were cheesy and sappy and a little excessive, some dialogue that was a little preachy and forced that could be cut, but I'm sure it will work itself out. But I think it did say some interesting things about religion, homosexuality, and family relationships. There was an interesting interplay between the characters, and the power they had over each other despite the weaknesses of each individual character.

The acting was good, the characters were all likable in a way. As the director described them, they were all completely right and completely wrong. I thought the characters were pretty endearing, and the writing definitely had many moments that made me laugh out loud. It was both funny and moving, I thought, and I was pretty captivated throughout the show.

So I liked it, but I think Lydia has some other opinions, so I'll let her share those if she'd like...

Shining City

2006-06-06T21:03:00.000-07:00

Imagine this. A phenomenally reviewed play, nominated for multiple Tonys, described to be like your ideal play - dark, edgy, funny, scary. It boasts stars like Oliver Platt and Brian F. O'Byrne, who can basically do no wrong on Broadway. This play could basically get away with anything, I was so excited for it. There was nothing that could turn me against it...And then I saw it. I'd like to think I had just built up so much expectation for it, that it was just disappointing. But no. It sucked. Sucked is such a harsh word. But I guess it's appropriate. Yeah, pretty much. Like after some shows, I want to run and post about it because it was so good. This one took me like four days. And I have no job. And absolutely no responsbility or anything to do during the day. Like I had to choose between posting about Shining City while watching "Password Plus" reruns on Game Show Network or just focusing 100% on "Password Plus" reruns on Game Show Network. I chose the latter. And I have TiVo. So I could have rewound if I missed anything. But no. I wouldn't even do that. It was that bad.

Okay. The basics. Plot summary: N/A. like literally. It consists of Brian F. O'Byrne talking to three different characters that really have nothing to do with each other, and bring no point to the entire play. It leads to this "shocking, horrifying twist of an ending" or something that reviewers say that apparently translates to "predictable, not scary, and basically a culmination of pointlessness." I'm sorry. I mean I only dozed off for a little bit a couple of times in one or two of the gigantically long (and pointless) monologues, but I think I pretty much caught everything. I mean if it wasn't Oliver Platt doing a wonderful job delivering the pointless monologues, I probably would have been out like a light the entire show. And that's hard to do when you're sitting in the dead center 5 rows back. I mean you can't sleep in seats like that unless the shows THAT bad.

Now people have said to me, "Really? but Brian O'Byrne was soo good." This I am not denying. Neither am I denying that Oliver Platt was good. I thought they were both excellent. I blame what they were saying. I don't know how Irish people talk for realy, but apparently everyone, no matter who they are and how different they are from each other, they say "You know" about four times a sentence, which I believe is MORE than my humanities professor freshman year, who only said it twice a sentence, or about 133 times a lecture (I tried to contain myself and did not count them during the show). And anyway, in the case of the younger boy, it wasn't really "You know," it was more "Yoo Gnaoooww," which made it hard to count or pay attention or not cover your ears and cringe in annoyance. Apparently Irish accent = Nasal accent in some acting schools.

Am I being mean? Maybe. But whatever, every other reviewer gave it rave reviews, so it can deal. I mean, it did build me up for nothing. And it did suck. So I guess I don't feel too bad. So yeah, not such a Shining City. Switch the starts of those words around. Much better. Now, you may like it, just like all those reviewers. But if not, don't say I didn't warn you.

Awake and Sing!

2006-05-29T20:02:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-29T06:15:00.000-07:00

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. TitusÂ sacrifice of TamoraÂs 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

2006-05-25T16:22:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-19T11:29:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-19T10:56:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-15T10:27:00.000-07:00

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.

The Drowsy Chaperone

2006-04-26T09:19:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-24T08:18:00.000-07:00

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!)

2006-04-20T06:43:00.000-07:00

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...)

2006-04-19T08:15:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-17T08:26:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-17T08:14:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-13T14:51:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-13T10:02:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-10T10:35:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-04T10:46:00.000-07:00

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?

Festen

2006-03-28T10:09:00.000-08:00

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]

2006-03-27T10:28:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-27T07:28:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-26T17:22:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-14T08:14:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-13T14:30:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-12T16:15:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-07T15:04:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-06T14:23:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-03T10:28:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-02T12:32:00.000-08:00

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.

The Lieutenant of Inishmore

2006-02-27T14:01:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-21T07:20:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-11T20:20:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-09T12:03:00.000-08:00

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 (!!!)

2006-02-06T07:48:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-06T07:30:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-03T20:32:00.000-08:00

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. ..

Spring Season 2006 - What I'm Looking Forward To

2006-01-30T07:41:00.001-08:00

Lydia Here - This might be a bit late but here's what I'm looking forward to in the Spring:

Broadway:
Threepenny Opera - oh, Alan Cumming
Three Days of Rain - who isn't looking forward to this show? Julia Roberts, what!
History Boys - if an actor from HP is in it, I'm there!
Ring of Fire - kind of have a small thing for the Man in Black lately
Faith Healer - Cherry Jones, Ralph Fiennes? does it get much better?

Off-Broadway:
Lt. Of Inishmore - McDonagh, author of The Pillowman, God's gift to theatre..
Grey Gardens - so the documentary was a bit weird - but i have high hopes - Doug Wright's on this...
House of Bernarda Alba - Michael John LaChiusa yes yes..

Christine Jorgensen Reveals/The Seven

2006-01-30T07:41:00.000-08:00

It's Lydia here. This weekend was packed (!) with theatre. Three shows in three days. Kevin just gave his thoughts on Jersey Boys, so it's my turn to report on the other two.

On Saturday, I saw a show at Dodger Stages called Christine Jorgensen Reveals. So first you should know that Christine Jorgensen was one of the first people in the world to have a sex change operation - male to female. She apparently got tons of press when this happened - both good and bad. The show is an interview with Christine Jorgensen in its entirety. One actor is portrayed on stage (one is the reporter in a recorded video) and he lip-synchs the entire interview, posing as Christine. It's really quite a concept - but to be quite honest, the concept is a bit better than the execution.Most of the things that Christine has to say are really very interesting, and she's intensely well-spoken and often very witty. The theatre space is really appropriate for this show- small and intimate, giving the audience the feeling of being in the room while the interview is being performed.

Another show that Kevin and I saw on Sunday is called The Seven, at New York Theatre Workshop (I heart this theatre!!). To borrow from their description: "The Seven is a hip-hop adaptation of Aeschylus's Seven Against Thebes, which follows the struggles of Eteocles and Polynices, the two sons of the cursed King Oedipus, as they fight for the throne of Thebes. " So as you can imagine, this show is high-energy from the minute you walk into the theatre. It feels like a dance club, and the first person to speak on stage is the DJ, the tune-spinning narrator of the show. The show has tons of great choreography by Bill T. Jones, and the direction is pretty solid as well. Having a tiny bit of lighting experience in the past, I really appreciated the targeted lighting - emphasizing the movements of all of the actors.

One downfall for myself (and Kevin) were the two lead actors playing Eteocles and Polynices, the two sons. Their voices were certainly not up to par and their acting felt a bit forced. I did appreciate the Yoga moves that happen during the forest scene, however. The people of Thebes also play the Seven and every single one of them is really great - but they are best as a whole. Well - the piece seems to try to hit at something for a new generation - and as much as I would like for it to get there - it seems to fall just a bit short. But go see it, give it a chance, and if nothing more you'll have seen a unique theatre experience.

Jersey Boys - Kevin's Thoughts

2006-01-29T21:14:00.000-08:00

I guess Jersey Boys is my show for first comment. I know - it's been out for a while, but we just got around to seeing it. The show - pretty great. However, if you're doing the student rush thing, beware the even number Row A seats. We sat behind a honkin' staircase and really missed a bit of action. Quite disheartening and frustrating. However, the show was still quite enjoyable.

Jersey Boys has a solid cast, doing some great renditions of The Four Seasons' and Frankie Valli's songs (and all those other combinations of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons and whatever other names they had that you learn from watching the show). It's really rather impressive watching the leads, especially John Lloyd Young as Frankie Valli, crank out this music (and the songs were in pretty rapid succession) while acting and dancing (sort of), etc. It's kind of like, whoa.

So truth be told, when I first heard about the show, I was like, "Um, Jersey Boys? Dumb. Another Jukebox musical? Please." But really, it's not your typical jukebox musical. Instead of weaving a really stupid plot around a bunch of songs (like making characters named Rhonda so you can sing "Help Me, Rhonda" to them... someone please gouge my eyes out with a spoon), the show tells the story of The Four Seasons, using the songs in actual performances to the audience rather than plot builders (with a few well-done exceptions). There's still a little cheese, and there are some moments of silly melodrama, but given that it's pretty much their story, it's forgivable.

It's a pretty interesting story, very Jersey, and told quite well, shifting narration and perspectives among the four leads. It's got a nice solid conclusion with some satisfying closure and feel-good warm and fuzziness. And of course, the music pretty much rocks, even if it's way before your time. Even at my age (23, for those of you who were wondering), I knew most of the songs, even though I didn't know The Four Seasons sang some of them before going into the show. Big fan of Christian Hoff as Tommy DeVito. All in all, I'd say see it if you're looking for a good time.