Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals

Review - La Cage with Harvey Fierstein but not Jeffrey Tambor

The sheer number of new musicals and revivals opening this spring in New York is fairly daunting. Don't get me wrong: more shows is certainly better than fewer. But my full-time schedule of classes at the Boston Conservatory creates a logistical challenge to me to get down to the city, preferably for one of the appointed press dates for the shows in question.

So far things are working out: I'm headed down this weekend to see The Book of Mormon, Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, Where's Charley?, and How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. Watch for my reviews in the weeks to come.

Before the spring crop of shows began to burgeon, I wanted to get down to see La Cage aux Folles with its new stars Harvey Fierstein and Jeffrey Tambor. Well, shortly after I arranged for my ticket it was announced that Tambor would be leaving the show after only a week of performances. The official line was that Tambor was experiencing complications from a recent hip operation. The truth, from what I hear, was a lot closer to what Michael Riedel reported in the New York Post: Tambor couldn't handle the role, lost his confidence, and succumbed to a major case of stage fright.

So, by the time I made it back to the Longacre Theatre, Tambor had withdrawn from the production, leaving his more than capable understudy, Chris Hoch, to pick up the slack. At the time, it hadn't been announced that Christopher Sieber would be Tambor's eventual replacement. Otherwise, I might have rearranged my plans: I love me some Chris Sieber. Maybe I'll have to take the show in a third time.

I certainly wouldn't mind. To be perfectly honest, the show felt more swiftly paced and emotionally engaging under the ministrations of Kelsey Grammer and Douglas Hodge. Perhaps this was because I was attending a sparsely populated Wednesday matinee the second time around. But once the production got moving, it became clear that the real star of the show remained director Terry Johnson's marvelously intimate and heartfelt staging.

The production is well worth a second look, if only for Harvey Fierstein, who is quite simply a comic wonder. And his "I Am What I Am" was stunning, full of both raw power and emotional restraint. Anyone who thinks Harvey Fierstein can't sing is in for a real surprise. (Although those of us who are fans of the sorely underrated A Catered Affair can attest to his perhaps surprisingly melodic singing prowess.) True his vocal timbre is closer to that of an overheated mallard that your typical Broadway leading man, but his intonation is impeccable, and his emotional expression incomparable.

Hearing Harvey's voice again in person reminded me of when I saw La Cage in its Boston tryout at the Colonial Theater some 27 years ago. I was but a wee sprite, but I nonetheless recognized a familiar foghorn of a voice emanating from behind me, and was delighted when I turned to see Harvey seated over my right shoulder. Not only that, but Jerry Herman was seated two seats away from me in my own row. It made for a rather magical evening, and I'm thrilled that Mr. Fierstein has afforded me the opportunity of bringing that experience full circle.

Fela Closing. But First, Patti LaBelle

The producers of the Broadway production of Fela recently announced that the show will close on January 2nd, 2011. At that point, the show will have run 463 regular performances and 34 previews.

That's certainly a decent run, and nothing to be ashamed of, but at about 14 months, it's probably not enough of a run to turn a profit. Granted, Wicked went into the black in that amount of time, but Wicked was running at full-price capacity. Fela has been running at a thoroughly respectable capacity of 85%, but at an average ticket of about $75.

So, all those A-list producers (Will Smith, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Jay-Z) most likely did have a positive effect on the show's box office, but not enough to push things into the profitability column.

But before the show folds up, the producers hope to go out with a diva-fueled bang. The fabulous Patti LaBelle will replace Tony winner Lillias White as Funmilayo, Fela's beloved mother, beginning September 14th and through the end of the show's Broadway run. LaBelle was originally only supposed to step in for White during her vacation, but LaBelle has since extended her run with the show.

Now, before you go booking your tickets expecting to see Patti LaBelle take over the stage of the Eugene O'Neill Theater, be forewarned: Funmilayo is a relatively minor role in the show. In fact, nearly every role other than the title role is minor. The story of Fela is told and sung almost entirely from Fela's point of view, which was one of the main problems I had with the show when I first saw at the now-moribund 37 Arts. (Read my review of the Off Broadway run.) I was pleased to see that the Broadway version actually gave some speaking lines to someone besides Fela, but I still found the storytelling rather inert. (Read my review of the Broadway production.)

To be sure, Funmilayo is an important role in the show, and she does sing on five of the show's 26 numbers. And a few of those songs are pivotal to the story. Just don't go expecting to see a Patti LaBelle concert. 'Sall I'm sayin'.

But, like the eponymous Fela Anikulapo Kuti, the show based upon his life will not fade quietly into the dark. The show is set to transfer to London, where it will enjoy a run at the storied National Theater, during which the show will be broadcast live to movie theaters around the world. One hopes that a DVD release will soon follow.

Yeah, I know. "Gee, Chris, I thought you didn't like the show." Actually, I genuinely appreciated what Fela was trying to do, even if I occasionally found fault with the execution. I fully support all efforts to stretch the musical theater form, and Fela's is definitely a story worth telling and retelling. Bill T. Jones has created some of his most vibrant and energetic choreography. And Sahr Ngaujah is unforgettable as Fela: dynamic, sexy, and passionate. So, I'll certainly be in a theater near me for the live cinecast. And I might even catch Fela again before it closes to see how La LaBelle fares on the Broadway stage.

Review - Next to Normal With Marin Mazzie and Jason Danieley

My long and tortuous history with the musical Next to Normal continues. When I was down in the city to see Bernadette Peters and Elaine Stritch in A Little Night Music (see my review below), I decided to make it the weekend of the replacement casts and take in real-life married couple Marin Mazzie and Jason Danieley, who recently took over the leads in Next to Normal.

Regular readers will recall my strong reaction to Next to Normal in both its Off-Broadway (my review) and Broadway (my review) incarnations. I won't rehash my reservations here, but I will say that there was something about the production with Mazzie and Danieley in the leads that made the apparent message of the show more ambiguous, which for me is a good thing. Life is ambiguous, and art is more satisfying when it reflects that lack of certainty.

Perhaps it was the comparative subtlety of the performances, particularly that of Marin Mazzie, that made the message less blunt. (Alice Ripley is many things, but she's certainly not subtle.) But seeing Next to Normal with an almost entirely new cast provided the opportunity to evaluate the piece afresh.

The show started off a bit garbled and indistinct. Quite a few of the lines and lyrics were lost to poor diction and a general lack of focus, on everyone's part. But things quickly improved in that respect. Mazzie wasn't quite getting the laughs that Ripley got from the role, but Mazzie's Diana was more human and believable, and more heartbreaking as a result. Plus, Mazzie has a killer belt, and she doesn't share Ripley's pitch problems. Personally, I didn't witness any intonation issues with Ripley either time I saw her in the show, but that is a frequent criticism that I've heard leveled against her.

Again, Mazzie's Diana is a lot more realistic, and considerably less batshit, than Ripley's. Don't get me wrong: Ripley was terrific in the role. But Mazzie is effective in an entirely different way. Her moment in act 1 with the music box ("I Dreamed a Dance") was profoundly moving. And the look she gave her husband Dan at the end of act 1 as she was being wheeled off to her first ECT treatment was so incredibly haunting that I haven't been able to erase it from my mind. I may never forget the sheer terror on her face. It was one of the most stunning moments I've ever experienced in the theater.

As for Jason Danieley, he may need a bit more time to warm up to the role of Dan, Diana's husband. Danieley seemed a bit too casual in performance, playing at a level that was not commensurate with the stakes of the proceedings. He was never less than serviceable, but he didn't really start making an emotional impact until the climax of the show, at which point he acquitted himself nicely. Plus, whereas Mazzie's vocals meshed well with the pop/rock idiom of Tom Kitt's score, Danieley's legit style was a bit out of place.

Taking Aaron Tveit's place in the pivotal role of Gabe is Kyle Dean Massey, who also played the role while Tveit was in Seattle for the out-of-town tryout for Catch Me if You Can. Massey seems to have been cast based on how much he looks and sounds like Tveit, but he's certainly talented in his own right, and brings a number of individual touches to his portrayal. Meghann Fahey as Natalie was considerably less grating than Jennifer Damiano, who's off to star in the debacle-in-progress that is Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. Damiano irritated me to no end, although in retrospect in may have been that Damiano was more fully evincing the annoying female-teenager self-centered-ness and sarcasm. Whatever, Fahey was a lot less likely to set my teeth on edge.

So, Next to Normal definitely seems to be growing on me, particularly under the auspices of the new Broadway cast. After my strong negative reaction to the show in its initial run, it's a bit of surprise. Who knew I'd become such a fan, if only a reluctant one?

Review - A Little Night Music With Bernadette Peters and Elaine Stritch

Dear Catherine Zeta-Jones: The Theater Wing would like its Tony Award back.

Why? Because Bernadette Peters is now proving eight times a week that you didn't deserve it. It's not as though you embarrassed yourself in A Little Night Music. Far from it. Your Desiree was never less than professional, but never more than merely competent. Let's be honest: the only reason you got that award is that the Tony voters wanted to congratulate themselves on being able to attract A-list Hollywood talent to Broadway, and to encourage other stars to make the trek east.

But now, visitors to the Walter Kerr Theater in New York can see how a real star of the stage comports herself in one of the best female roles in the musical theater canon.

To be sure, Bernadette is not without her mannerisms and eccentricities, which are on full display here. Peters seems hell-bent on wringing every possible laugh from Hugh Wheeler's urbane and literate script, whether through exaggerated line readings or shameless mugging, even when she's not the immediate focus of the scene. But the marvel here is that it works, and swimmingly so.

When I saw Zeta-Jones play the role (read my review), there was a definite sense of nervousness about her, despite her striking beauty and killer smile. And that anxiety was contagious. But with Bernadette, I just sat back and enjoyed being in the hands of a seasoned stage performer. It reminded me of seeing Maggie Smith in Lettice and Lovage or Three Tall Women. In both cases, I knew she was hamming up a storm, but I eagerly and ravenously devoured every last scrap of pork.

And when it comes to hearing Bernadette Peters interpret Stephen Sondheim's ravishing score, well, there's just no comparison. Zeta-Jones was on pitch (mostly) throughout the show, but her delivery of "Glamorous Life" was irritatingly labored, compared to Bernadette's joyous playfulness. And "Send in the Clowns" in Peters' hands is a tour de force. Suddenly the mannerisms die away, the defenses are down, and we're left with a masterful performer laying bare a raw and palpable sense of loss and regret. It's nothing less than stunning.

And then there's the formidable Elaine Stritch. With all due respect to the wondrous Angela Lansbury, Stritch has a much firmer grasp on the humor inherent in the role of Madame Armfeldt. Of course, Elaine is showing her age much more than Angela was. Elaine's pacing is extraordinarily slow, giving the impression that accessing every single line and lyric is a chore. The show is about 15 minutes longer than it was with CZJ and Angela, and most of that extra time comes from Stritch's continual grasping and shameless backphrasing, particularly on "Liaisons."

But, again, it works. Stritch is every bit the pro that Bernadette is, and she knows her way with a caustic one-liner. In fact, she can make almost any line into a caustic one-liner, whether the authors intended it or not.

When I first heard that Bernadette Peters and Elaine Stritch would be taking over for CZJ and Angela Lansbury, I was skeptical. I wasn't sure that either was right for her respective role. But after seeing the show, I can confidently announce that both women suit their parts admirably, bringing a spark of vitality to a production that was sorely lacking in same prior to their accession. These consummate professionals breathe bountiful life into a formerly moribund property. It's an amazing sight to witness.

NOTE: New Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations require bloggers to disclose when they accept anything of material value related to their blog posts. I received complimentary press tickets to this performance of A Little Night Music.

Bernadette Peters and Elaine Stritch in A Little Night Music

As you most likely know, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Angela Lansbury played their final performances in the revival of A Little Night Music this past weekend. You may also know that the show, which was originally scheduled to close upon their departure, will instead take a brief hiatus before Bernadette Peters and Elaine Stritch take up the parts of Desiree and Madame Armfeldt, respectively, on July 13th.

More on that later, but first I wanted to address some Post-Tony controversy initiated by performer Hunter Foster. As I've said, the Tonys this year were dominated by Broadway congratulating itself for attracting A-list Hollywood stars, and awarded them Tonys, in some people's estimation, simply for showing up. Hunter took it upon himself to start a Facebook group called Give the Tonys Back to Broadway, which at the time of this writing had 7,651 members.

I've admired Hunter's work for years, but I find this effort misguided and naive. The Tonys are about business and marketing. And Hollywood stars are currently seen as the key to box-office success. As long as that ethos remains extant, Tony Awards will continue to go to shows and performers that are most likely to earn the voters money. And nothing will change in that regard until theater critics are restored to the ranks of the Tony voters.

That said, I believe that Catherine Zeta-Jones was undeserving of her Tony Award for Best Actress in a Musical. (Read my review of this production.) If you didn't get to see her on stage, all you have to do is listen to the cast recording to witness the problem. She was fine in the book scenes, but during the songs she pushed and emoted to an egregious extent. Check out this clip from "The Glamorous Life." It's rather painful to listen to. It's as though she's trying with every note to justify her presence in the show. This otherwise excellent recording is marred by a leading performance nearly devoid of subtlety, although "Send in the Clowns" is admirably restrained.

But the fact remains that this show would never have made it to Broadway without CZJ. And based on the momentum established by CZJ (and the lovely Ms. Lansbury), we now get a chance to see Bernadette Peters and Elaine Stritch take up the roles. Would the show have made it to Broadway solely based on the draw of Misses Peters and Stritch? It's possible, but I have my doubts. So we very likely have CZJ to thank for providing us with the chance to see two genuine pros of the stage take on the roles. When Peters and Stritch leave, could we possibly see some additional recasting to keep the show afloat? Perhaps the mother/daughter team of Blythe Danner and Gwyneth Paltrow, as previously rumored?

Well, if that does happen, Hunter Foster will no doubt be pleased to know that neither would be eligible for a Tony, since only the cast from opening night of a particular production qualifies. Unless, of course, the Tony commission changes the rules to accommodate replacement casts. And, depending on the wattage of the stars in question, is that notion really that far-fetched?

Next to Normal Wins Pulitzer Prize (Ahem...)

OK, so I know that many of you have been waiting for me to weigh in on Next to Normal winning the Pulitzer Prize. Frankly, I was stunned, but not for the reasons that most people in the theatrical community were similarly stunned. I've been pretty vocal in my criticism of the show, primarily in my review of the Off-Broadway production at the Second Stage Theater, but also in my review of the much-revised Broadway production at the Booth Theater. 

My criticisms of Next to Normal were initially based on the quality of the show as well as its ostensible anti-psychiatry message. Between the show's Off Broadway and Broadway stints, the show's artistic execution has vastly improved, and the apparent message has been toned down considerably. But more on that later.

Coincidentally, the day of the Pulitzer announcement, I had been talking in my musical-theater history class about how no musical that has ever won the Pulitzer has genuinely deserved it. (The eight musicals that have won the award are Of Thee I Sing, South Pacific, Fiorello, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, A Chorus Line, Sunday in the Park With George, Rent, and now Next to Normal.) I don't necessarily agree with that statement, but I often use it as a provocative proposition to start a discussion about awards and their relative worth. (For the record, I think that, if any of these musicals genuinely deserved the Pulitzer, it was Sunday in the Park With George.)

After N2N won the Pulitzer, there was a lot of moaning and hand-wringing about the selection process, and how the Pulitzer board members chose to ignore the recommendations of the nominating jury. Well, according to the Pulitzer rules, they're perfectly free to do, so that part didn't really bother me. I figure the board is free to choose as it sees fit. I did have to raise my eyebrows at the revelation that a significant number of the Pulitzer voters had seen Next to Normal the night before the voting. Why is that a problem? Well, N2N is a heart-wrenching show, and it strikes me that the voters may have been responding on a knee-jerk, emotional basis rather than from a considered, analytical viewpoint.

In contrast to the Pulitzer voters, I wanted to take my time in formulating my response to the Next to Normal win, which is why I've waited this long to post about the topic. In short, I don't think the show deserved the award, but that view is not based on the inherent quality of the show. I think it's a very well-crafted show, with a strong score and an affecting story.

No, my objection remains with the show's romanticizing mental illness (witness the song "I Miss the Mountains") and its implicit rejection of psychiatry. The show's main female character, portrayed very affectingly by Tony-Award winner Alice Ripley, suffers from bipolar disorder, and throughout the course of the show undergoes a number of treatment modalities, including talk therapy, drug therapy, and ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). At the end of the show, she rejects all of the above and decides to go it alone. I took great exception to this apparent repudiation of psychiatry, and said so in very strong terms in my initial review. Librettist/lyricist Brian Yorkey contacted me in a series of vitriolic emails, which at first I did not respond to. When his tone became more measured and collegial, I answered back, and he and I engaged in a productive dialog about his right to craft a show that says whatever he wants it to.

Now, is the show condoning Diana's actions or merely portraying them? Yorkey has never specified to me. Are people free to reject all forms of therapeutic intervention? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or stay silent about it. In my experience, there are far too many people who eschew treatment for mental illness based on the archaic and dangerous notion that they should be able to just pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Psychiatric disorders are genuine medical conditions, not imaginary constructs. A diabetic cannot through force of will regulate his own insulin levels. Likewise, the power of positive thinking isn't going to help someone with bipolar disorder regulate the amounts of serotonin and dopamine that are available in her synapses.

Is it possible for a show to be worthy of a Pulitzer Prize yet still espouse a viewpoint that I find questionable at best, dangerous at worst? Well, that's free speech for ya. At the very least, Next to Normal provides the opportunity to create some dialog about the topic of mental illness. And, again, it's a very strong show artistically, and one that audiences seem to have genuinely responded to, based on the fact that the Broadway production, defying all odds and predictions, recently recouped its $4-million investment. And the show will launch its national tour in November. I encourage all my readers to see the show, whether on Broadway or on tour, and decide for themselves. All I ask is that you view the show with both an open mind and a skeptical eye.

Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig in Whatever. (Oh, Yeah. A Steady Rain)

Like most people, when I heard that Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig were going to appear together on Broadway, I didn't really care about the show itself. I just wanted to see Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig.

As for the vehicle that brought this hot pair to Broadway, well, let's just say that playwright Keith Huff is one lucky man. If it hadn't been for Jackman and Craig, this contrivance of a play would likely never have made it beyond his hometown of Chicago.

It's become a cliche to say, "I could watch so-and-so read the phone book." I would imagine that, for most people, that phrase represents hyperbole. There are certain actors I admire greatly, but in truth I would never be able to watch any of them read the Manhattan Yellow Pages.

Well, as a play, A Steady Rain is certainly a step above the phone book. But not a big step. As I said it my Twitter post right after I got out of the play, "Clumsy play, rife with unconvincing melodrama + two hot guys = $130.00"

As for the performances, Daniel Craig reveals himself as a remarkably versatile and nuanced actor, immersing himself entirely in his character. Hugh Jackman was fine, but I find I must repeat what a number of my fellow bloggers have said about his performance here: it's hard to forget that he's Hugh Jackman. Whether that's a function of the level of his super-stardom or a reflection of his acting abilities, well, I'm not sure I really care. He certainly looked great in a pair of chinos.

[SPOILER ALERT: I'll be revealing a key plot point later in this review. If you already have your ticket and don't want to spoil the surprise, you might want to read the rest of this review subsequently]

The play concerns two childhood friends who have entered the police force and become partners. (Don't get too excited: I mean "partners" as in "working the same beat." But wouldn't that have been cool?) Huff's dialog has a certain idiomatic flair, but he seems to have been hellbent on cramming in as many plots developments as he could manufacture, without regard for balance and credibility.

Not content to merely tell a story of two men whose lives are developing in a way that forces them to make some very difficult decisions, Huff crafts A Steady Rain with an inexorable momentum toward tragedy, and the results are unsatisfying. Particularly difficult to swallow was a plot revelation that represented a fictionalized account of a certain well known serial killer who disposed of his victims in a rather culinary way. ("Swallow" was an unintended pun, I assure you, but upon rereading this post, I decided to leave it in. I considered it in keeping with the way this play left a bad taste in my mouth. Er...I mean...) There's also an unnecessarily manipulative use of a puppy as a plot device, which literally had me groaning, as did the show's ultimate denouement.

Rumor has it that the entire run for A Steady Rain is sold out, but that's not true. A quick check to Telecharge reveals that there are indeed tickets left for a number of upcoming performances. If you, like me, are purely interested in seeing these two guys on stage, and you've got $130.00 to spare, then the questionable quality of the play itself will be unlikely to deter you. Just don't expect anything more than two iconic stars doing their best with overwrought material.

iSondheim with Barbara Cook?

We've been hearing off and on about a new revue of Stephen Sondheim's work with the unbearably precious name iSondheim. The show is being compiled and directed by James Lapine, longtime Sondheim collaborator.

The show was originally supposed to run at Atlanta's Alliance Theater this past April and May, but that production was canceled because of the projected production costs and the weak economy. As the awful title implies, iSondheim was to have included a great deal of technology -- multimedia, video, projections, etc. -- featuring interviews with Sondheim himself, intermingled with live performances of songs from Sondheim's career. But the production requirements apparently made the show untenable for a regional, non-profit run in the middle of a recession. 

More recently, there's been chatter on the Rialto about a New York run for iSondheim, under the auspices of the Roundabout Theater, and starring none other than the glorious Barbara Cook, who would be making her first appearance in a non-concert, non-benefit Broadway show in nearly forty frickin' years. The show would also feature two additional singers, yet to be cast. The wonderful Liz Callaway was supposed to have starred in the Alliance run. Wouldn't it be great to see her treading the boards again? Perhaps with her equally marvelous sister, Ann Hampton Callaway?

However, iSondheim seems to have hit a bit of a snag, according to Michael Riedel's column today in the New York Post. Apparently, Mr. Sondheim himself isn't happy with the revenue percentage that the Roundabout wants from any future touring company of the show. Something tells me Steve is going to get his way; it would seem that the Roundabout needs this show -- financially and artistically -- a lot more than Sondheim needs the Roundabout. The good news is that the iSondheim name, according to Riedel, is very likely to change. He mentions that both Virtual Sondheim and Sondheim on Sondheim have been under consideration as replacement titles, although neither seems to be much an improvement. 

Here's hoping that the differing parties iron out their differences so that we can all get to see both Stephen Sondheim and Barbara Cook back on Broadway where they belong.

Desk Clearing: West Side Spanish, Birdie Dance, Nine Movie, and Ragtime Logo

A number of things have been making me cranky lately. Not sure if it's just my mood, or if these items are genuinely annoying. So, rather than addressing each item separately, I figured I'd just get them all out of the way in one peevish post.

Bye Bye Birdie - The New York Daily News reports that the star of the upcoming Broadway revival of Bye Bye Birdie, Gina Gershon, won't be performing the show's iconic Shriner's Ballet. The article quotes Gershon as saying the dance was cut because it was too "gang rape-y." As other commentators have pointed out, that's never seemed to be a problem before, despite being Tams-Witmark's number-one show for decades. The more likely explanation: Gershon can't handle the dance. If they're so concerned about modern sensibilities, will Gershon be performing the regressive and sexist "An English Teacher"? Will the chorus girls still be fawning and fainting to the salacious sight of Conrad Birdie's gyrating hips? The show is a period piece. If you don't like the period, don't do the piece.
Peeve Factor: 7 out of 10. If you want to see a real pro in action, click here to watch Chita Rivera perform the Shriner's Ballet.

West Side Story - According to the New York Times, the current smash-hit Broadway revival of West Side Story has changed back much of the show's much-touted Spanish to the original English lyrics and text. As you may know, director Arthur Laurents brought in Lin-Manuel Miranda (In the Heights) to translate huge chunks of the show into Spanish. The article quotes Laurents as saying the Spanish was "an experiment." Yeah, a failed experiment. As I've written about in my reviews of the show itself and of the CD, I wasn't a fan of the Spanish text. I found it alienating and thought it robbed two terrific songs ("I Feel Pretty" and "A Boy Like That/I Have a Love") of their humor, pathos, and drama. But I also thought that Miranda's lyrics didn't match the quality of Sondheim's original work.
Peeve Factor: 5 out of 10, mitigated by the fact that they've, for the most part, reverted to the infinitely preferable original words.

"Nine" - The more I hear about Rob Marshall's forthcoming film version of Nine, the less excited I become. First, the delectable Javier Bardem dropped out, replaced by the talented but IMHO considerably less sexy Daniel Day Lewis. Now, according to Playbill, Maury Yeston has provided three new songs for the movie: "Guarda la Luna," "Cinema Italiano," and "Take it All." Which is fine, but to make room, they're cutting at least five of the original songs: "Simple," "Be On Your Own," "Grand Canal," "Nine," "The Bells of St. Sebastian's." Boo and grrr. (For a detailed discussion of the cut and added songs, check out a post by my friend Kevin at Theatre Aficionado at Large.)
Peeve Factor: 9 out of 10. Pun intended. I'm not a knee-jerk purist, but the movie is going to need to be pretty spectacular to make up for the butchering of the score. Of course, the "Sweeney Todd" film involved a tremendous amount of cutting as well, and I raved about that movie in my review. So, the jury's still out, despite my current annoyance.

Ragtime - The press folk for the upcoming Broadway revival of Ragtime have recently been touting the new visual identity for the production. (See left) Apparently, it's the work of some famous Italian illustrator. Whatever, it's washed-out, flat, and unmemorable. Plus, the physical arrangement seems borrowed from the logo to The Secret Garden. Of course, I was also nonplussed by the logos for Hair and A Catered Affair, and impressed by that of Cry-Baby. So there's no necessary connection between the quality of an individual show and that of its marketing materials.
Peeve Factor: 2 out of 10. Like many of you, I'm simply thrilled that Ragtime is getting another chance on Broadway. During its original run, it was overshadowed by The Lion King and hampered by irresponsible -- and now felonious -- producing.

A Little Night Music - With Lansbury and Zeta-Jones?

In his column yesterday, Michael Riedel of the New York Post wrote that the upcoming Broadway transfer of Trevor Nunn's acclaimed London production of A Little Night Music will very likely star Angela Lansbury (Madame Armfeldt) and Catherine Zeta-Jones (Desiree Armfeldt). There hasn't been any official announcement about casting, but the production is tentatively scheduled to begin performances in December at the Walter Kerr Theater.

Rumors have been circulating for weeks about Angela Lansbury's involvement in A Little Night Music, but this is the first I've heard about Catherine Zeta-Jones. I'm not sure what I think of CZJ as Desiree. She certainly has musical-theater experience, but I didn't think she really deserved an Oscar for the movie version of "Chicago." She was fine, but unexceptional.

But, irrespective of whether CZJ can pull off the part, there's the Antonio Banderas factor to consider. It's very unlikely that the recent Broadway revival of Nine would have gotten off the ground if it hadn't been for his presence, and as long as he stayed with the show, it did terrific business. But as soon as he left, business plummeted, despite the presence of replacement Guido John Stamos.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the same dynamic will play out with CZJ in Night Music. There's no question that she'll be a huge box-office draw, but once she leaves, the show will likely close. Unless, of course, they can get some other Hollywood star to take her place. (Rene Zellwegger as Desiree? The mind boggles...) And what are the odds that CZJ is likely to stick around for more than 6 months, a year tops? 

I adore A Little Night Music, and have been longing for a strong Broadway revival of the show, of which this production would be the first. I'm not usually a pie-in-the-sky kind of guy, and I know that the economic realities and vagaries of producing a Broadway show can induce producers to find ways to mitigate their risk. I can certainly understand the producers' wanting to bring in a name, but there's a part of me that wishes they would rely on the strength of the show itself and the quality of the production.

Finian's Rainbow Revival Cast and Logo

The producers of the upcoming Broadway revival of Finian's Rainbow recently announced some initial casting for the show. The lovely and talented Kate Baldwin will reprise the role of Sharon, which she played in the recent Encores concert version. Also returning as the eponymous Finian will be the delightful Jim Norton, Tony winner for The Seafarer. Warren Carlyle, who directed and choreographed the Encores production, will repeat those duties for Broadway.

As for those who won't be returning, the delicious Cheyenne Jackson will likely not be a part of the Broadway Finian's Rainbow cast, owing to a conflicting engagement, which rumor has it will be in London. No announcement yet about who will be taking Jackson's place. Also out is the wonderful Jeremy Bobb as Og, apparently because the Burton Lane estate thought he was too cute for the role. (How's that for a left-handed compliment?) Taking his place as Og will be Christopher Fitzgerald. (I guess he's just cute enough.) Tony winner Chuck Cooper (The Life) will also join the cast in the role of Billboard.

In my review of the Encores version, I said that I was enchanted by the the Burton Lane and E.Y. "Yip" Harburg score, but nonplussed by book, adapted there by David Ives. But I've subsequently read through Harburg's original and Peter Stone's revised versions of the libretto, and found a lot more merit in the show than the Encores presentation reflected. As to whether it will be commercially viable, I have serious doubts. As I said in my review:

It's one thing to wow the "in" crowd at City Center. It's another thing entirely to attract enough of the general public to make a Broadway run profitable. Heck, if frickin' Gypsy with frickin' Patti LuPone can't manage more than 332 performances, what makes producers think that Finian's Rainbow is going to lure the crowds in?

On the plus side, I really like the new logo, pictured above. The image is vibrant and welcoming, and conveys the sense of a classic story with a fresh, modern sensibility. Hopefully, so will the show.

UPDATE: Despite recent reports to the contrary, Variety writes today that Cheyenne Jackson will indeed reprise the role of Woody when Finian's Rainbow hits Broadway this coming season. I had heard that Jackson had a conflicting engagement in London, but it appears that either that gig fell trough, or the producers of Finian's Rainbow were able to entice him away. Either way, it's good news for the show: more than just a pretty face, Jackson is also a terrific performer, and made for a charming foil to Baldwin's winsome Sharon. I would have seen the show again anyway, but this makes the prospect that much more pleasurable.

Babes in Arms With Rosie O'Donnell

It's funny, I was just thinking about Babes in Arms and how we haven't seen a revival in a while. (Yes, that's the sort of thing that spontaneously crosses my mind. Blessing? Curse? You be the judge.) And then I checked Internet Broadway Database and it turns out there has never been a Broadway revival of Babes in Arms, although there have been numerous studio recordings and concert versions of the show, such as the 1989 version with Judy Blazer and Gregg Edelman, and the 1999 Encores cast with David Campbell and Erin Dilly.

Now, Variety is reporting that next season we could see a revival of the Rodgers and Hart musical Babes in Arms featuring Rosie O'Donnell. The production is slated to be directed and choreographed by Randy Skinner, a recent Tony nominee for White Christmas. The show will sport a new book by the very busy Joe DiPietro, author of the long-running I Love You You're Perfect Now Change, the somewhat forgettable All Shook Up, the currently running The Toxic Avenger, and the upcoming Memphis. 

It's kind of amazing that we haven't seen a Broadway revival of the show since its 1937 premiere, given that the score is chockablock with Rodgers and Hart standards, including, "Johnny One-Note," "I Wish I Were in Love Again," "The Lady is a Tramp," "Where or When," and what just might be the most beautiful song of all time, "My Funny Valentine." (Arguable, yes. But you have to admit it's a fantastic song, with a dynamite melody and one of Larry Hart's best lyrics.) Of course, the reason we don't see revivals of a lot of shows from the '30s is that the books are creaky and dated. So when we do see them (Anything Goes, Girl Crazy/Crazy for You, The Boys From Syracuse, On Your Toes) they usually involve reworked or completely new books, or suffer from the lack.

The plot of Babes in Arms involves a chorine (O'Donnell, believe it or not) who helps a group of kids whose parents are out-of-work vaudevillians "put on" the proverbial "show" to help them raise money so they won't be sent to a work farm. The show flops, but later a transatlantic aviator lands nearby and they're able to parlay the publicity into a successful subsequent run of the show. The original show had modest sets and no stars, so it was able to make a profit. The new production will reportedly feature a cast of 15 and a single, unit set, which means it will probably fill one of Broadway's lesser-used, smaller houses. 

Bear in mind, though, that at this point last year we were also anticipating revivals of Brigadoon, for colored girls..., and a reworked version of Oh, Kay, AKA Nice Work if You Can Get it. So don't go planning your trips to NYC just yet. As I type this, I'm looking at my unused ticket to the aborted revival of Godspell.

Ain't Misbehavin' at Boston's Strand

Last night, I caught a performance of the 30th anniversary tour of Ain't Misbehavin'. I've always been a big fan of the show, and fortunately have a video of the TV broadcast of the original Ain't Misbehavin' cast performing it. Although the current cast members don't fully live up to their original counterparts (how could they?), they nonetheless do a bang-up job of evincing the joy and vitality of the piece.

The Boston stop of the national tour of Ain't Misbehavin' is part of a joint effort by the City of Boston and the Citi Performing Arts Center to renovate and revitalize the Strand Theater, an underutilized gem located in Dorchester, a neighborhood with a significant African American population.

The show is part of a larger program of African American-related events called SpectrumBoston.org, which also features the upcoming Boston premiere of The Color Purple. (The Color Purple, however, will not play the Strand, but rather the cavernous Wang Theater.) It was great to see so many African Americans in attendance at Ain't Misbehavin', and having a grand old time, at that. I would love to see more such efforts in Boston to bring professional theater outside of the narrow confines of the theater district and the South End.

Of course, many of the attendees had come to see "American Idol" winner Ruben Studdard, in the Ken Page role. Studdard is certainly no Ken Page, but he's strong vocally and has a playful presence. Most of the comedy in the role, however, was lost to Studdard's poor diction and obvious lack of stage experience. Studdard wasn't alone in this regard. The one major issue I had with this production was that, while the lyrics were, for the most part, intelligible, most of creator Richard Maltby's priceless asides were lost to indistinct delivery. 

The tour also features two additional Idol alumni, the talented Trenyce Cobbins in the Charlaine Woodard role, and Frenchie Davis in the role originated by the late great Nell Carter. Davis was out for the performance I saw, but we instead got to see the terrific Teresa Stanley. The cast also features the dynamic Arthur W. Marks and the adorable Patrice Covington in the Andre de Shields and Armelia McQueen roles, respectively.

Overall, I was struck by the strength of the piece itself, which was created and directed by Richard Maltby at the top of his form. Surely, this is one of the most entertaining and effective revues in musical theater history, eschewing obligatory exposition in favor of a straightforward celebration of the music and artistry of Fats Waller.

Matlby is greatly aided by the superb work of orchestrator Luther Henderson and choreographer Arthur Faria whose collective efforts coalesce into a seamless evening of joy and good humor. Henderson's arrangement of "Black and Blue" is nothing less than stirring, and sent shivers through my body. In a show full of movement, the creators have chosen on this number the have the performers sit still and let Waller's heartbreaking song and Henderson's stunning vocal arrangement do the work.

For the most part, the performances in the current production are sharp, and the staging crisp. And, despite the presence of three "American Idol"-ers, the vocal histrionics were kept to a refreshing minimum. I was initially afraid that this production would be a slapdash effort to capitalize on waning celebrity, but was heartened by the genuine craft and care in evidence. Thankfully, the creators haven't changed the show to suit the talents of the stars, preferring instead to let the piece speak for itself. The show remains a lasting testament to the genius of Waller, as well as that of the creators.

In other news, the tour produced a recently released cast recording, which is currently available only at Amazon.com. The admittedly talented cast comes off considerably less well on the recording, or perhaps that simply my ingrained bias for the original Broadway cast recording talking. Amid the thousands of Broadway CDs that I own, Ain't Misbehavin' is undoubtedly in the top ten for me in terms of recordings that I actually listen to. Maybe even the top five. I find I go back to the CD whenever I need a jolt of joy, and it never fails me. If the national tour comes to your town, I highly recommend that you see it, but as for a permanent record of Waller's music and career, it's all about the OBC.

Catch Me If You Can Set for Seattle

Ah, stardom is so fleeting. Now that the BGMC concerts are over, I no longer get to feel pretty, at least not in song form. But now I get to catch up on some blogging posts I've been meaning to write.

The long-gestating musical Catch Me If You Can finally seems to be coming to term. The show, based on the 2002 Stephen Spielberg movie of the same name, will have its world premiere in Seattle this coming summer.

The creative staff comprises many of the same people from Hairspray, including director Jack O'Brien (once he's finished with the apparently disastrous Impressionism), and choreographer Jerry Mitchell (back where he belongs after an arguably unfortunate stint as director for Legally Blonde). Also on board are Hairspray composer and lyricist Marc Shaiman and Scot Whitman. One new member of the creative staff is Terrence McNally on book. (Thomas Meehan and Mark O'Donnell were apparently too busy with Cry-Baby. An unfortunate choice, in retrospect.)

The cast boasts some of the best performers that Broadway has to offer, including Norbert Leo Butz in the Tom Hanks role, and Aaron Tveit in the Leonardo diCaprio role. The cast will also feature Kerry Butler, Linda Hart, and Tom Wopat. So, the production has all the feel of a Broadway-bound musical, although no official Broadway opening has been announced.

Memphis Musical Coming to Broadway in Fall

You gotta admire some people's optimism. Despite the fact that the only musicals that are staying open on Broadway right now seem to be the pre-branded hits and long-running blockbusters (and some of them are even struggling along themselves), there are still intrepid souls who dare to risk the move to Broadway.

Witness the long-aborning musical Memphis, which recently announced a planned move to Broadway in the fall of 2009 at a theater TBA. The show has had numerous tryout runs, including a world-premiere engagement at the North Shore Music Theater and most recently a run at Seattle's 5th Avenue Theater. Apparently the latter engagement went so well that the producers feel confident in shepherding the show to New York, despite an admittedly chilly economic climate. (Heck, there are recent weeks when even Wicked and Jersey Boys aren't selling out.)

Memphis sports a book by Joe DiPietro (I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change, All Shook Up). Thankfully, this is not a jukebox music, but rather one with an original score by Bon Jovi's David Bryan. DiPietro and Bryan share duty on the lyrics. The pair are also collaborating on the new musical version of The Toxic Avenger, which opens Off Broadway next month.

Director Christopher Ashley (Xanadu) and choreographer Sergio Trujillo (Jersey Boys) will repeat their roles for the show's Broadway bow. Casting has yet to be announced, but recent versions of the show have starred Chad Kimball (Into the Woods, Lennon, Good Vibrations) and Montego Glover (The Color Purple). 

Subtitled "The Birth of Rock and Roll," Memphis tells the fictionalized story of a young, white radio disc jockey growing up in Memphis in the '50s. He becomes an on-air champion of African-American music, and falls in love with a black female singer, with "dramatic consequences," according to press material. That certainly sounds a lot more interesting that the show's title, but then the similarly named Chicago certainly seems to have done well for itself.

Gyllenhall and Carrey in Damn Yankees Movie

That collective sigh you heard earlier today was the reaction of thousands of theater queens worldwide (this one included) reacting to the news that Jake Gyllenhaal is set to star as Joe Hardy in a new movie version of Damn Yankees.

Variety reports that Gyllenhaal will join Jim Carrey (as Mr. Applegate) in a Hollywood remake of the classic Richard Adler and Jerry Ross musical. Apparently, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron ("Chicago," "Hairspray") have been working for a few years on the project, and after numerous machinations have received the greenlight from New Line Cinema. The plan is to get a screenplay draft together (from Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel) before shopping the project around to prospective directors, as well as Lola candidates.

I think it's safe to say at this point that the movie musical genre is officially mainstream again. This has been years in the making, of course, but it's interesting to note that it's no longer news in itself that Hollywood is making musicals. We're back to talking about the individual projects rather than the resurrection of the genre. Of course, that's great, but I think we all know that it's only going to last as long as the projects continue to make money.

On a related note, Rob Marshall's film version of "Nine" will reportedly hit theaters in November. Now, I'm as excited as the next TQ about this movie. (Although I would have been a lot more excited if Javier Bardem had stuck with the project.) And the cast is certainly chockablock with familiar, Oscar-winning faces (Daniel Day Lewis, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Sophia Loren). But is anyone else out there as skeptical as I am about "Nine" and its mainstream appeal? Please don't get me wrong: I *love* this musical. But I have a really hard time conceptualizing its potential audience.

Addams Family Musical Will Hit Broadway in 2010

We've been hearing a lot lately about the upcoming musical version of The Addams Family, with a score by Andrew Lippa (The Wild Party, john & jen, new songs for the revival of You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown) and a book by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice (Jersey Boys).

Well, now The Addams Family appears to be on track for a Broadway bow in April 2010, after an out-of-town tryout in Chicago from November to January.

A recent workshop of the show featured Nathan Lane as Gomez, Bebe Neuwirth as Morticia, and Kevin Chamberlin as Uncle Fester, although there's no word yet on whether they'll repeat those roles on Broadway.

The buzz about the workshop was quite positive, particularly for the book and the performances. Apparently the story for the musical is not based on the movies or the TV show, but rather inspired by the original Charles Addams New Yorker cartoons. (And, no, they won't be using the famed da-da-da-dum-snap-snap hook from the TV show theme song.)

Direction and design for the show will come from the eclectic pair Phelim McDermott and Julian Crouch (Shockheaded Peter), so we're likely in for a show that's, at the very least, interesting to look at.

My take: Well, I try to see everything, so it really doesn't matter if I say that I'm going to see it. But I think audiences will be attracted to the cast, if Lane and Neuwirth do indeed sign on for the Broadway run. The brand-recognition factor should attract a sizable crowd, but I don't get the sense that it will prove to be a critic-proof, guaranteed hit. The show will only have legs if it can generate positive word of mouth, something that, for instance, Shrek has so far been able to do, and The Addams Family as a very similar, pre-packaged, brand-driven feel to it.

Pal Joey at the Roundabout

Christian Hoff may well be the luckiest man in New York right now. He was spared the indignity of appearing in the Roundabout Theater's dismal revival of Pal Joey. This production is easily one of the worst I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot. ("I mean a lot...")

Hoff would undoubtedly have had more stage presence than the unfortunate Matthew Risch, who exhibits no charisma, no charm, no lasting impression at all as Joey, at least until he takes off his shirt. Risch is a strong dancer, and possesses a decent but unremarkable singing voice, but there's no real indication in his performance as to why all these people in the show should be so beguiled by Joey. Risch squirms, slouches, and slithers his way through the role, which is certainly an interesting acting choice, but makes the supposed attraction even more inscrutable.

I've been going back and forth on whether I disliked the show itself or this admittedly lackluster production. Because the music by Richard Rodgers and lyrics by Lorenz Hart coalesce into more of a random series of songs than a cohesive score. Half of the score consists of non-integrated nightclub numbers ("You Mustn't Kick It Around," "The Terrific Rainbow," "The Flower Garden of My Heart," etc.) Yeah, I know, the show's supposedly a classic. I teach Pal Joey in my Boston Conservatory class, because it represents a number of significant developments in musical theater history: it's the first significant use of an antihero, and it represents a major step in the progression towards realism and serious subject matter.

But that doesn't mean it's a good show. There are quite a few musicals that I include in my course, not because they're good or because I enjoy them, but because they're historically significant. It was very interesting to catch both Pal Joey and Music in the Air in the same weekend, a rare chance to witness early works by both Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein before they met up with each other and changed the course of musical theater. At the end of the day, I saw both of these shows as part of the long, slow slog towards quality and integration: interesting from a historical perspective, but not necessarily entertaining.

The Roundabout seemed to make a big deal about how noted playwright Richard Greenberg (Take Me Out, Three Days of Rain) would be providing a new book for the show, based on the original by John O'Hara, which O'Hara adapted from his own 1939 novel. Greenberg had previously adapted the Pal Joey book for a 1992 production at Boston's Huntington Theatre, but to my knowledge this is his only experience in crafting a musical libretto. From where I sit, Greenberg's version isn't much better than the admittedly creaky original. The result is jokey but not funny, and full of plot holes and unanswered questions.

But the primary villain of the disaster that is Pal Joey is Joe Mantello, whose direction here is every bit as limp as it was in The Ritz, another Roundabout disappointment. His chief crime is making the normally wonderful Stockard Channing seem cowed and weary, as if to say, "Get me out of this dog." I had been hearing that Martha Plimpton almost made this production worth seeing. Yeah, almost. Plimpton has a surprisingly strong voice for someone who's not normally associated with musicals, but she also has a blunt, flat delivery and that's a sure sign of someone with an AWOL director, or one who didn't take the time to modulate her performance. Still, she's the only interesting presence onstage here: no subtlety, but at least she's lifelike. 

I've got a notebook full of other problems I had with the show and the production (including Graciela Daniele's uninspired and frequently awkward choreography), but, you know what? I can't be bothered. Suffice it to say this production was colorless and dull. We may yet see a revival of Pal Joey that rediscovers and reinterprets the show, finding something interesting and entertaining hiding somewhere in this material. But this production wasn't it.

South Pacific Stars: The Ins and Outs

Yeah, I'm not a fan of South Pacific, neither the show itself nor the current smash-hit revival. But I know my readers are interested in the show, and its stars, and I'm certainly not above a little pandering for blog traffic.

Apparently, the lovely and talented Kelli O'Hara, the show's Tony-nominated Nelly Forbush, is pregnant, expecting her first child with husband Greg Naughton. She'll take a leave from the show starting in March, and return sometime in the fall. In the meantime, costumer Catherine Zuber is working on some designs to prevent O'Hara's delicate condition from detracting from the show.

But here's the part that I know a lot of people will be interested in hearing about. O'Hara hopes to return to the show in time to play opposite co-star Paulo Szot before he leaves the show sometime late in 2009. There's been quite a bit of search traffic on my blog over the past few months with terms like "When does Paulo Szot leave South Pacific?" and "When is Szot's contract up?" and stuff like that. So, it appears that Szot (rhymes with "hot") will be sticking with the show at least until the holiday season.

I enjoyed both O'Hara and Szot when I saw the show last March (read my review), and although the show itself alternately bores and irks me, I certainly don't begrudge it its success. Heck, I'm just happy that people are still going to the theater in these troubled times. Even with the economic meltdown, Broadway still has at least four shows (Billy Elliot, Jersey Boys, Wicked, and South Pacific) playing at or near capacity. Sure, it would be great if there were more shows running, but at least someone out there is making money. That speaks to the continuing power and popularity of live theater.

[CUE MUSIC: "You'll Never Walk Alone"]

New Hair Logo Heinous

I was playing around on IBDB tonight, and I came across what appears to be the logo for the upcoming Broadway revival of Hair. (See image left)

Pretty hideous, huh? The colors are washed-out and lifeless, the font is cheesy, and the composition is flat. I find nothing redeeming in this image, and it does little to make me want to see the show. And I've seen it already, and can attest to its quality. (Read my review of the show's Central Park stint.) There's a lot more inspiration involved in the production itself than apparently went into its visual identity. I still plan to see it again, but I can only hope the marketing folk plan to come up with something a bit more evocative and esthetically pleasing to get other folks interested.

The full cast for Hair has yet to be announced, but news has been trickling out. Gavin Creel, who was to have been Jesus in the canceled...er, postponed revival of Godspell, was recently cast in the central role of Claude. I saw Jonathan Groff play the role, and he was terrific, but apparently the Hair producers are asking the performers to work for scale, and Groff balked. Another potential performer who's taken a walk is Eden Espinosa, who was supposed to have played Sheila, but recently withdrew "for personal reasons." (Hmm...) No word yet on whether Will Swenson will return to the show as Berger, or whether he'll instead follow Rock of Ages to Broadway. The ROA gig might mean more money, although perhaps not, since the ROA tickets are priced to sell (at a relatively inexpensive $99 price point).

And it's not just the on-stage players in Hair that are changing. Producer Elizabeth I. McCann was recently relegated to more of a supporting role when the Public Theater brought in Spring Awakening producers Jeffrey Richards and Jerry Frankel as lead producers. Perhaps this is because McCann was having trouble raising the money to get the show up and running? Whatever, the opening night for Hair has moved from March 5th to March 31st to accomodate the personnel changes. Will the show retain its Central Park sparkle amid the sturm and drang? Stay tuned.