Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals

The 2011 Tony Award Winners - My Take

 I haven't watched the Tony Awards yet. I know that sounds strange, but I had a concert to attend last night, and earlier this year I disconnected my TiVo and got rid of cable, and I haven't had the desire nor the ambition to do whatever it is I need to do to get my TV up and running without cable. Lately, I've been perfectly content with my DVD collection and Netflix.

Of course, as soon as I got home, I fired up my computer to see who won what. Here's a breakdown of how many awards each musical production won:

The Book of Mormon: 9
Anything Goes: 3
Catch Me If You Can: 1
How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying: 1
Priscilla Queen of the Desert: 1

Before I launch into my take on the individual winners, I just want to give a shout out to whoever designed the logo/poster/Playbill cover for this year's awards. I guess it wouldn't seem so remarkable if last year's poster hadn't been so heinous. Anyway, here are the winners:

Best Musical
*The Book of Mormon
Catch Me If You Can 
The Scottsboro Boys 
Sister Act
My Take: Pretty much as expected, and well-deserved. Catch Me If You Can and Sister Act were inept and lackluster, and there was no way the Tony was going to go to The Scottsboro Boys. Remember, the Tonys are about marketing, not artistic quality, and you can't market a closed show.

Best Revival of a Musical
*Anything Goes
How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
My Take: You know, the more I think about it, the more I like the new How to Succeed more than the current Anything Goes. Both were immensely enjoyable to sit through, but I find that How to Succeed has lingered with me longer. I sort of have to actively think about Anything Goes to recall specific things about the production. So, on the whole, I would rather the Tony had gone to How to Succeed.

Best Actor in a Musical
*Norbert Leo Butz, Catch Me If You Can
Josh Gad, The Book of Mormon
Joshua Henry, The Scottsboro Boys
Andrew Rannells, The Book of Mormon
Tony Sheldon, Priscilla Queen of the Desert
My Take: Josh Gad and Andrew Rannells appear to have split the Book of Mormon vote, giving previous winner Butz a chance to pick up his second Tony. Don't get me wrong: Butz is great, in this show as well as in everything he does. But I kinda would have rather seen the award go to Rannells, or Gad, who both give impeccable comic performances. Why couldn't Gad and Rannells have gotten a single nomination, like those oh-so-adorable and three young men who undeservedly won a three-way Tony a few years back for Billy Elliot? Yeah, I know, the kids were all playing the same part. But Emily Skinner and Alice Ripley weren't playing the same part in Side Show, and they got a tandem nomination. I'm only half serious here, but honestly, if the Tonys can make the rules up as they go along, why can't I speculate with reckless abandon?  

Best Actress in a Musical
*Sutton Foster, Anything Goes
Beth Leavel, Baby It's You!
Patina Miller, Sister Act
Donna Murphy, The People in the Picture
My Take: Just as it should be. Sutton Foster is a gift to musical comedy. Both Beth Leavel and Donna Murphy are remarkable performers, but they're really the only reasons to see the otherwise execrable shows that they are unfortunately appearing in. Patina Miller is a very talented newcomer, and I wish her well, but I wasn't all that thrilled with her performance in Sister Act, nor indeed with the show itself. Sister Act was very deservedly shut out in every category.

Best Featured Actress in a Musical
Laura Benanti, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
Tammy Blanchard, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
Victoria Clark, Sister Act
*Nikki M. James, The Book of Mormon
Patti LuPone, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
My Take: Word on the street had Laura Benanti winning for a second time. But Women on the Verge appears to have left far too bitter an aftertaste for many of the Tony voters. (Not to mention me.) Plus, Nikki James, although she is wonderful in her role, clearly benefited from the Book of Mormon behemoth. I would love to have seen the award go to Tammy Blanchard, who does a wonderful job of making Hedy Larue her own.

Best Featured Actor in a Musical
Colman Domingo, The Scottsboro Boys
Adam Godley, Anything Goes
*John Larroquette, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
Forrest McClendon, The Scottsboro Boys
Rory O'Malley, The Book of Mormon
My Take: A genuine surprise. The smart money was on Rory O'Malley, who's an absolute stitch as the closeted gay Mormon. (Must...resist...redundancy reference...) Godley didn't do much for me in Anything Goes. And for Domingo and McClendon, well, nomination is its own reward. Larroquette was terrific as Bigley, evincing much of the smart comic timing that won him so many Emmy Awards. I would have given the award to John McMartin in Anything Goes, but he wasn't nominated. So I guess I'm pretty happy it went to Larroquette.

Best Book of a Musical
Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Alex Timbers
*The Book of Mormon Trey Parker, Robert Lopez and Matt Stone
The Scottsboro Boys, David Thompson
Sister Act, Cheri Steinkellner, Bill Steinkellner and Douglas Carter Beane
My Take: Bingo. Jackpot. Straight Across. Bloody Bloody and Scottsboro were both worthy contenders, but clearly this award was going to go to the funniest book to hit Broadway in many a season. And as for Sister Act, well, the less said the better, really.

Best Costume Design of a Musical
*Tim Chappel & Lizzy Gardiner, Priscilla Queen of the Desert
Martin Pakledinaz, Anything Goes
Ann Roth, The Book of Mormon
Catherine Zuber, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
My Take: PUH-LEEZ. Predictable and disappointing. The Tony voters appear to have caught on to the American mania for more, More, MORE! Sure the costumes for Priscilla are lavish, gaudy, expensive, and over-the-top. But are they good? I kinda wish the Tony voters had gone with the Mormon momentum and given the award to Roth. At least her costumes were genuinely witty.

Best Direction of a Musical
Rob Ashford, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
Kathleen Marshall, Anything Goes
*Casey Nicholaw and Trey Parker, The Book of Mormon
Susan Stroman, The Scottsboro Boys
My Take: I'm thrilled to see Nicholaw get some much deserved love. My admiration for his work has only grown over time. The man really knows how to dress a stage, shape comic performances, and get the show running at a jaunty pace. I'm looking forward to seeing his career progress, both as a director and a choreographer.

Best Choreography
Rob Ashford, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
*Kathleen Marshall, Anything Goes
Casey Nicholaw, The Book of Mormon
Susan Stroman, The Scottsboro Boys
My take: I would love to have seen this one go to Nicholaw, but really any of these fine people were deserving of this award. And Marshall's work on Anything Goes is outstanding, so it's really hard for me to gripe here.

Best Original Score
*The Book of Mormon, Music & Lyrics: Trey Parker, Robert Lopez and Matt Stone
The Scottsboro Boys, Music & Lyrics: John Kander and Fred Ebb
Sister Act, Music: Alan Menken, Lyrics: Glenn Slater
Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Music & Lyrics: David Yazbek
My take: My sentimental side (and, yes, I do have one) was sort of hoping this would go to Kander and Ebb for their fine work on Scottsboro Boys. But I genuinely enjoy the score to Book of Mormon, and find new things to love in it every time I listen to the recording. Sister Act and Women on the Verge were merely placeholders this year, although the more I listen to the Women on the Verge CD, the more begrudgingly fond I become of certain numbers (especially "Island" and "Lovesick").

Best Lighting Design of a Musical - *Brian MacDevitt, The Book of Mormon
Best Scenic Design of a Musical - *Scott Pask, The Book of Mormon
Best Sound Design of a Musical - *Brian Ronan, The Book of Mormon
Best Orchestrations - *Larry Hochman and Stephen Oremus, The Book of Mormon
My take: Clearly, this year we saw the Tony momentum go to Book of Mormon. Much as The Producers got more Tonys than it deserved simply because the Tony voters wanted to set a record, so too Book of Mormon won in more categories than was probably warranted because the Tony voters wanted to congratulate themselves on finally having another smash hit on the boards. So Best Lighting? Best Scenic Design? Best Orchestrations? These fine upstanding professionals can, for the most part, thank the Book of Mormon juggernaut for their coveted little trophies.

Commentary - The Broadway "Bloodbath"

On Twitter yesterday, you'd think someone had died. Or lots of people. Or perhaps there had been a bloody massacre of unprecedented proportions.

But what really happened was that nine shows closed on Broadway, all on the same day: Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Elf, The Pee-wee Herman Show, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Promises, Promises, Brief Encounter, Fela, West Side Story, and Donny & Marie: A Broadway Christmas.

Yeah, that list looks pretty scary when you look at the sheer volume, and contemplate the number of currently empty theaters on Broadway.

But, upon closer inspection, the situation isn't nearly as depressing as it might seem. Two of those shows were specific to the holiday season (Elf, Donnie & Marie). Two were intended as limited runs and ran out their full engagements (The Pee-wee Herman Show, Brief Encounter). Two were shows that are going to be taped for broadcast (The Pee-wee Herman Show, Fela). And, yes, two of these shows were limited engagements that closed earlier than originally planned (Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown). But this particular production of West Side Story had the longest continuous run of any Broadway version of that show, including the original production. 

True, there are still more closings to come in the month of January: La Bête, A Free Man of Color, In the Heights, A Little Night Music, Next To Normal, and Time Stands Still. But what a lot of the boo-hoo-ers fail to point out is that some 23 new shows are scheduled for Broadway in 2011, 21 for the spring alone. What's more, currently only four Broadway theaters out of 40 have no confirmed bookings for the spring. Here's a list of what's coming, or hasn't yet officially opened:

NEW MUSICALS:
Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark
Sister Act
Wonderland
The Book of Mormon
Catch Me if You Can
Priscilla: Queen of the Desert
The People in the Picture

MUSICAL REVIVALS:
Anything Goes
How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
Godspell

NEW PLAYS:
Ghetto Klown
Jerusalem
Good People
War Horse
The Motherfucker With the Hat
Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo

PLAY REVIVALS:
The Importance of Being Earnest
That Championship Season
House of Blue Leaves
Master Class
Arcadia

FALL PLAYS:
Death of a Salesman
Old Masters

I'm certainly sympathetic to the actors and other folks who are losing their jobs. But that's how theater works. And that's how it's always worked. To paraphrase Curtains, it's a business, folks. Some of those people will be cast in some of those new shows. Some won't. To paraphrase A Chorus Line, nobody gets into theater because they're looking for a steady job.

From the audience perspective, you'd think that Broadway stalwarts would, to a certain extent, actually appreciate when shows that have moved past their sell-by date make room for fresher shows. Remember, turnover means we have more shows to see. Wouldn't Broadway be dull if *every* show ran for 20 years?

The Scottsboro Boys Targeted by Protesters

What is "ignorance"? Calling someone "ignorant" has taken on a decidedly pejorative connotation, but in the strictest sense, "ignorance" simply means "lack of knowledge."

So I mean no disrespect when I call the protestors who picketed outside last Saturday's matinee performance of The Scottsboro Boys ignorant. The 30 or so protesters were from an organization called The Freedom Party, and from their Web site, I get the sense that this is a well-meaning group of people.

But I also get the sense, as is so often the case when a group protests a particular work, that few if any of these people had actually seen the show. And that, if true, technically makes them ignorant.

Why were these people protesting? Well, essentially they object to the show's use of minstrelsy and blackface to illuminate its tragic subject matter. Here's their case in their own words:

"This racist play has reduced the tragedy of the Scottsboro Boys case to a Step n Fetchit comedic, minstrel exhibition...It is this type of attack on our culture and history which makes the Freedom Party absolutely necessary."

I suppose it's possible that at least one person involved had actually seen the show, but if someone had, then that person would have had a chance to read the program notes, which include the following statement from the authors:

"The Scottsboro Boys uses the free-for-all atmosphere of the minstrel show to provide a fitting backdrop for the racially charged media and legal circuses that surrounded the real Scottsboro Boys trials."

There's no question that the idea of using a patently offensive device to tell what is ultimately an empowering story is a controversial prospect. According to a recent article in the New York Times, the actors themselves have had challenges with the subject matter as well as the show's presentation style.

But does that give these people the right to call patrons of the show "racists"? Because that's what some of them were doing last Saturday. I know, because a large group of my students from the Boston Conservatory were in attendance at this particular performance of The Scottsboro Boys. And they filmed portions of the protest and posted the footage on Facebook.

The irony, of course, is that these students were attending the show precisely because they are *not* racists. Many of them were seeing the show at my urging or based on my review. A further irony is that a number of students told me that they were even more captivated by the show because of the protest, which only served to emphasize the importance of the show's message and the incredible power of its artistic execution.

The Scottsboro brouhaha reminded me of when, a few years back, the Boston Conservatory put on a production of Show Boat. Because I teach musical-theater history, I was thrilled that students would have the opportunity to experience this seminal show firsthand. I cover Show Boat in great detail, and make a point of addressing how it was the first show to treat African Americans as three-dimensional, sympathetic people.

In fact, librettist Oscar Hammerstein makes black people the symbolic backbone of the show, most notably by giving Joe, the black stevedore, the show's central anthem, "Old Man River." What's more, one of the major plots of the show centers around the tragedy of how racism destroys the career and life of Julie LaVerne, the mulatto leading lady of the show boat before a jealous suitor reveals her interracial marriage (which was illegal in Mississippi at the time) to the local sheriff.

In addition, I devote a good portion of the first half of my course to the evolution of the portrayal of African Americans in musical theater, from unfortunate stereotypes (Shuffle Along), to sympathetic social commentary (As Thousands Cheer), to stark heart-rending tragedy (Lost in the Stars). So, I was rather taken aback when students protested the fact that we were doing the show, because of the supposedly negative portrayal of African Americans in the show. These were all students who had taken my course, which really had me scratching my head. Had they simply not been paying attention? Had they ever actually seen the entire show? Because anyone who sees Show Boat and thinks that the show is somehow condescending or disrespectful to blacks simply didn't understand the show.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but an informed opinion holds a lot more sway, at least when it comes to the artistic and social value of a certain work. In all honesty, I hope the good folks at The Freedom Party continue to protest The Scottsboro Boys. In the long run, it can only raise the profile of a magnificent show that deserves to be seen.

A Conservatory Education: Or, How to Put a Bee in My Bonnet

Harrumph.

So, there I was, reading the New York Times online, minding my own business, when I came across a seemingly innocuous Q&A with one Mary Anna Dennard, author of the new book I Got In: The Ultimate College Audition Guide for Acting and Musical Theater. Since I teach at the Boston Conservatory, such a discussion is of more than passing interest to me.

Everything was going fine, until I came across the following sentence:

Carnegie Mellon, Cincinnati Conservatory, Texas State, DePaul, Pace University, Boston Conservatory, the American Conservatory Theater, Juilliard are all considered conservatories or conservatory-style programs in that their training is rigorous and intense with little or no coursework in general education and electives. [Emphasis mine]

I nearly did a spit take into my Darjeeling.

Now, I'm very happy to report that, as of this fall, I will be teaching full-time at the BoCo. (Thank you.) I've been on faculty there since 2003, but only recently gathered together enough teaching credits to be considered a full-timer. And it just so happens that every single class I teach is either in general education or an elective. [Emphasis mine.]

What's more, there's an entire department of amazingly qualified, incredibly dedicated, and mindblowingly overeducated professionals who do exactly the same thing. Needless to say, I forwarded the article with all due haste to my esteemed colleagues, who were all equally incensed at such casual calumny, and we decided to formulate a sternly worded response. I've submitted the the letter as a comment on the Times Web site, but also as a letter to the editor. But I figured I'd post it here as well as sort of an open letter to Ms. Dennard, in the interest of promulgating the truth about what goes into a conservatory education.

Of course, I can't speak for Julliard, CCM, CMU, or any of the other schools mentioned above. But I do know first-hand that the education available to the students at BoCo goes far beyond their career-specific professional development. Far beyond.

Dear Editor:

Those of us in the Liberal Arts Department at the Boston Conservatory would strongly dispute certain points that Mary Anna Dennard makes in a recent article on the New York Times Web site (Arts Beat, The Culture at Large, “Answers to Your Questions About College Theater Programs,” August 11, 2010). In particular, we take significant issue with the contention that our program offers "little or no coursework in general education and electives." The Boston Conservatory strives to challenge its students both artistically and intellectually. In fact, we believe those goals to be one and the same.

Our BFA in musical theater includes 41 credits in general education out of a total of 132. That amounts to 31% of students’ total credit hours over their four years here at the Conservatory. Within our liberal arts program, students explore multidisciplinary areas of cultural history. In their freshman year, they begin with American studies and composition. In sophomore year, they start with the Greek classics and move on through the European tradition. In junior and senior years, students delve into modernism and postmodernism.

What’s more, each of these core courses eschews the standard broad survey method in favor of a depth-of-field view with a specific thematic focus. For example, students study the Greeks through contemporary research into the evolutionary biology of aggression and cooperation. They view European culture through the lens of modern-day debates on the definition of happiness, as well as the dual themes of utopia and terror. A very popular recent addition to our core curriculum is a course on the neuroscience of music, which engages students with up-to-the-minute research on how brain function affects arts performance.

Electives include Italian Neo-Realist Film studies; Colonialism and Post-colonialism; Creative Writing Workshops in Poetry and Fiction; Into the Wild: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Concept of Wildness; Arts Criticism; A Cultural History of the Body and Gesture, etc.

Even more electives are available to Conservatory students through the Boston Pro Arts Consortium, through which students may cross-register at neighboring schools, such as The School of the Museum of Fine Arts, Berklee School of Music, Boston Architectural College, and Emerson College.

We invite Ms. Dennard to explore our full curriculum on our Web site. (www.bostonconservatory.edu) We’re confident that she will discover that, although as a conservatory we are primarily interested in turning out world-class performers, we also pride ourselves in offering our students a full range of academic rigor that addresses their full potential as people as well.

Sincerely,

The Liberal Arts Faculty
The Boston Conservatory

Confessions of a Theater Dork

Anyone with an obsession for theater (and you know who you are) is very likely to develop parallel compulsive behaviors. We're all just a wee bit off, we theater queens, and it's only natural that our singular focus on live entertainment should engender private routines and rituals.

Oh, get your mind out of the gutter. I'm simply talking about perfectly benign yet nonetheless urgent habits that spring up in the normal course of abnormal amounts of theater.

Case in point: Playbills. Of course, I save all of my Playbills. Duh. I also take my ticket stub and insert it between the pages of the Playbill so that it sticks out on two different pages, sort of like a subscription card in a consumer magazine.

Also, about twenty years ago, I developed the habit of asking for two Playbills from my usher. At first, I said it was for a friend who couldn't come. Then I gave up all pretense and simply started asking for two. Only twice in all that time has an usher refused. (Ah, but I have backup plans. See below.) I recall one particularly surly wench at Lincoln Center who became downright belligerent. She spent the next few weeks trying to remove a flashlight from her forehead.

I used to ensconce one Playbill inside the other to safeguard one from weather and wear. Then I started bringing an appropriately-sized shopping bag. The ones for CDs from the late and lamented Virgin Superstore in Times Square were perfect, but since that store's demise I've also made do with the script-sized bags from Theater Circle on 44th Street, or the paper bags from The Drama Book Shop. Since I normally buy a script or two on most of my trips to New York, I typically have a bag on hand, but I also save bags from previous trips and pack one with my bus ticket and theater receipts.

Lately, I've been getting into the habit of appropriating a few extra Playbills for each show. The hope here is that I can eventually sell them on eBay once the show has long since closed. Often, I nonchalantly abscond with a few from the usher's pile behind the back row of any given section. I also have a habit of picking up discarded Playbills from the theater floor at the end of the show. This always feels a bit less illicit: these Playbills will only be thrown away in any case, and I'm actually helping the custodial staff, when you think about it. ("Yeah, Chris, whatever...")

 
Between shows, I used to make regular pilgrimages to Footlight Records and Triton Gallery, but the former has closed its retail shop, and the latter has moved to a location that is not at street level, and most of the time I can't be bothered to make the extra effort. I rarely get my tickets at TKTS, but I do make it a habit of walking by, just to see what's up on the board. I get an extra sort of charge when the show that I'm seeing isn't listed. (It's the little things, you know.) I'm not averse to TKTS. It's just that I'm rather specific about the shows that I want to see on any given trip, and I almost always arrange tickets ahead of time, whether through press agents or through such discount outlets as BroadwayBox, Theatermania, or Playbill.com.

There are certain common behaviors that I avoid: I don't wait outside the stage door to meet my favorite stars, nor do I ask for autographs if I do happen to bump into people. I'm not entirely sure why, but somehow the thought of engaging in these activities makes me feel debased, like I'm somehow beneath these people. I like to think of myself as more than just an audience member: I'm a part of the theater community, and peers don't fawn over peers. I don't judge the people who stage door or seek signatures, but I also don't see myself engaging in those activities any time soon.

Once I get home, I pull out my Playbill binder containing my various editions of the Stubs book of seating charts. Then I mark down which shows I saw in which theater, as well as which seat I sat in. I have four different versions of the Stubs book, because for some reason the people who publish it keep reducing the number of theaters listed therein. The current version lists mostly Broadway venues, but previous editions contained a good deal of Off Broadway as well. I keep the old copies to keep track of theaters that no longer exist (e.g. The Criterion Center, The John Houseman, etc.), as well as venues that are no longer listed (e.g. The Mitzi Newhouse, Second Stage, etc.). I also keep a Word file of all the shows I've ever seen anywhere in the world.

So, dear reader, what are your theater rituals? What borderline-compulsive activities do you engage in before, during, and after the show?

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?

The Tony Awards - Why I Didn't Care This Year

I'm sure that I don't have to tell you that the Tony Awards were presented on Sunday night. I had a concert that night (see post below), so I had to watch the proceedings on TiVo delay. But truth be told, it really didn't matter to me because this season was so lackluster with respect to new musicals. Sure, there were shows that tried to do new things, particularly Fela, American Idiot, and Come Fly Away. But none of them really succeeded, in my humble estimation. (Click on the links above for my reviews of each production.)

So it really wasn't a surprise when Memphis won Best Musical. I would have preferred that Fela win, simply because it was more ambitious. I thought the first act of Memphis was super slick, but the second act descended into predictability and essentially veered off into Hairspray country. (Click on the link above for my full review.) Why did Memphis win? Simple: the critics were dumped from the voting ranks of the Tonys and the remaining voters went for the relatively safe choice. Memphis won not because it's very good (it isn't) but rather because it's more likely to be successful on the road.

So, Memphis has now joined the ranks of Raisin, Redhead, Hallelujah Baby, The Mystery of Edwin Drood, Big River, Sunset Boulevard, Fosse, Applause, and Jerome Robbins' Broadway: Big winners in a down year. Will Memphis virtually disappear from circulation as most of the above-listed shows have? Time will tell. 

The Tony Awards broadcast was rather unremarkable, although lots of people seemed to think that Sean Hayes knocked one out of the park as host. I thought he was fine, but he paled in comparison to the charm, ease, and spark that Neil Patrick Harris brought to last year's telecast.

One notable trend this year was Broadway congratulating itself on being able to attract A-list Hollywood stars. Did Scarlett Johansson, Denzel Washington, and Catherine Zeta-Jones genuinely deserve their Tony Awards? I saw neither A View From the Bridge nor Fences, so I'm in no position to judge there. (I concentrated almost exclusively on musicals this season.) But I did see A Little Night Music, and can honestly say no, I don't think she deserved it. (Click on the link for my review.) I would have been happy to see the award go to Kate Baldwin (Finian's Rainbow), Montego Glover (Memphis), or Christiane Noll (Ragtime). I think this is another case of the skewing effect of having producers, presenters, and other business types vote for the awards. Rewarding stars for coming to Broadway means more stars come to Broadway. And in the current environment in which plays and musicals are increasingly reliant on marquee names above the title, that's a very important business proposition.

Of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with merit. Or art.

Review - American Idiot at the St. Jimmy...er...St. James Theatre

I realize that this review is a little late to the party, but I encountered a bit of a perfect storm of work over the few weeks since American Idiot opened at the St. James Theatre in New York. The final flurry of Broadway show openings happened to coincide the the end of the semester here at the Boston Conservatory, and I had quite a few final exams to correct and whatnot. Plus, I got a last-minute assignment to write the liner notes for an upcoming cast-recording release. Watch this space for more news on that front.

In a way, it's a good thing that some time has passed since American Idiot opened, as it has helped me put the show into perspective, particularly with respect to the relative merits of all the new musicals this season. As I've said here previously, it's been a pretty lean season, at least with respect to the actual quality of the new musicals on Broadway. Unfortunately, American Idiot isn't much of an exception, at least in my estimation.

During the out-of-town tryout of American Idiot at the Berkley Repertory Theatre, the advanced word was that there wasn't much of a book to the show. Faced with this feedback, director/co-librettist Michael Mayer and Green Day front man Billie Joe Armstrong decided to cut back on what little dialog there was. (Um...what?) Apparently, their goal was to focus the show more on the songs. (Um...OK...) The result is an expressionistic rock concert, which is admittedly stunning, both visually and auditorily. I was particularly impressed with Steven Hoggett's idiomatic dance and movement. But what it all amounts to is a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing. 

I must say, I found the score to American Idiot surprisingly tuneful. "Surprising" because I'm really not all that well versed in current popular music. I hadn't been overly familiar with the band Green Day prior to seeing the show, although I'm sure I've heard a few of those songs somewhere in my travels. But I had never heard the full album America Idiot, upon which the show is based. I had been worried that the music might turn me off, as the music to Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson did. But overall, I found the score to American Idiot pleasant and energetic.

[SPOILERS BELOW]

As for the plot of the show, yeah, not so much. It's not that the story isn't clear; it's that it's not very interesting. There are too few developments in each of the stories. The show centers around three restless teenagers: Johnny (John Gallagher Jr.), Tunny (Stark Sands), and Will (Michael Esper). Across the ninety-five intermission-less minutes of the show, each character only really deals with one plot development. Johnny gets hooked on drugs and alienates Whatshername, the girl he met along the way. Will gets Heather pregnant, but winds up rather inexplicably driving her away. Tunny goes to war, loses a leg, but manages to meet an "Extraordinary Girl." And that's it. So, basically, what we have here is Come Fly Away set to a rock score, although I will say that American Idiot is considerably better than Twyla Tharp's exercise in tedium that's currently running at the Marquis.

The cast is strong, as are their singing voices. I was particularly impressed with the dynamic Tony Vincent as St. Jimmy (Johnny's drug-induced muse, and the reason for the bad pun in the title of this post) and the electric Rebecca Naomi Jones, woefully underused here as Whatshername. But the Tony nominating committee seemed to have a definitive hair across its ass when it came to American Idiot, as not a single cast member garnered a nomination. The show got a nod for Best Musical, but the only other nominations it received were in scenic and lighting design. Despite the show's relatively poor showing with the Tonys, the show may nonetheless prove to be a hit. It has seen fairly steady grosses of about $700,000 a week, with an average ticket climbing from $50 to about $80. 

So, hey, Tonys be damned, huh?

GRADE: B (A visual and auditory assault, but ultimately lacking in impact or meaning)

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.

I Won't Trade, Don't Ask Me

No sooner did I receive my CD of the current revival of A Little Night Music than I also received a request from someone to share the MP3 files. The request was from someone on a site for cast-recording collectors. He sent a link with all of the titles in his collection, offering to make a trade.

I have no intention of even replying to the email, but it did put me in mind of a conversation I had recently with a fellow blogger about how PS Classics, the company that released the A Little Night Music CD, is perilously close to going out of business. And that's because people like my fellow OCR aficionado aren't willing to actually pay for the music that they listen to.

So I dug through my blog archives for this post, which makes my position on file-sharing quite clear. Let me me painfully blunt: file-sharing is selfish, stupid, and short-sighted. And it's stealing. If we're not willing to buy cast albums, then there won't be any to buy. If you download commercially available cast recordings that you haven't paid for, then you're no friend of mine. I don't even want you reading this blog. Go listen to your stolen music. But just remember that you're putting small, struggling companies out of business, and that you're jeopardizing the very future of cast recordings themselves.

So be forewarned, my friends: I won't trade. Don't ask me.

Million Dollar Quartet Will Play the Nederlander

No sooner had the revival of Brighton Beach Memoirs died what many consider to be a premature death at the Nederlander Theater then a new show announced its tenancy. Million Dollar Quartet, which has been playing for more than a year in Chicago, will begin performances on 41st Street in March of 2010.

Million Dollar Quartet relates the story of one day in 1956 when Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, and Carl Perkins all jammed together "for the first and only time," according to the show's Web site. The show features a book by Floyd Mutrux and Colin Escott, and interpolates popular period songs, including "Great Balls of Fire," "See You Later Alligator," "Fever," and "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On."

Will Million Dollar Quartet be the next Jersey Boys or the next All Shook Up? To be honest, I'm finding it really hard to care. I can't imagine a musical I'd be less interested in seeing, except perhaps Pure Country. Yeah, I'm not that big on rock 'n roll, country music, or their derivatives. Of course, I'll see the show. I like to see everything. But, to paraphrase Frank N. Furter, I'm not exactly shivering with anticipation.

Plus, the commercial resume for the show's co-director, one Eric Schaeffer, isn't particularly encouraging. Yes, Schaeffer is the artistic director of the respected Signature Theater. But his Broadway outings thus far have comprised Putting it Together and Glory Days . "Ick" and "Youch," respectively. He also directed the first national tour of Big, and the London premier of The Witches of Eastwick. So you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.

But, getting back to the topic of Brighton Beach Memoirs, I've been lying pretty low on this topic, partly because my interests lie primarily in musical theater, but also because so many of my blogger peeps seemed to be in mourning, and I didn't want to salt their wounds. But I have been bristling at all the journalistic hand-wringing, particularly by Howard Kissel of the New York Daily News. Kissel uses the failure of BBM to bemoan the death of "the Broadway Audience," whatever that means.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see any larger implications for the closure of BBM, beyond the fact that the producers chose to do a show that few people apparently wanted to see. Yes, I'm sure poor marketing and insufficient finance had something to do with it. But all the sturm und drang I keep hearing about the death of straight plays (at least those without stars above the title) and the growing irrelevance of Neil Simon and whatnot is pretty much crap.

I see dozens of shows each season, and even I wasn't all that interested in seeing BBM. Many of my blogger cohorts were thrilled with the production, and on that basis I might have taken it in, had it run longer. But, again, I see the demise of BBM as the result of bad producing, in particular faulty (or nonexistent) market research.

Is the non-star straight play dead? August: Osage County anyone? If the play is good, people will come. Sure, the producers resorted to bringing in Estelle Parsons and Phylicia Raschad toward the end of the run, but only after the show had captivated New York audiences without a single well-known name. Is Neil Simon a relic? That remains to be seen. Recent productions of his shows have certainly been disappointing, but there's no such thing in theater as a "never" or an "always." Methinks the pundits are looking for higher meaning where it's entirely possible that none exists.

My $0.02.

Little Johnny Jones - A Little Bit Racist

Starting this semester, I've added staged readings to my musical-theater history course at the Boston Conservatory. The idea is to give the students a chance to experience some obscure but historically significant shows, works that they would otherwise be unlikely to have a chance to see or appear in. This semester, we're doing Little Johnny Jones, which was the show that put George M. Cohan on the map. Next semester, I'm looking into doing one of the "Princess" shows, perhaps Oh, Boy! or Very Good Eddie.

Initially, I was hoping to perform the original script and score to Little Johnny Jones. My first difficulty: they were rather challenging to track down, but I eventually found the libretto through the good folks at Goodspeed Opera House. As of yet, I've only been able to locate fragments of the original score. But the hunt for the score proved moot when I read the original book to Little Johnny Jones, which was creaky to the point of being virtually unplayable.

History books often point to the aforementioned Princess shows as the start of the musical-theater integration process. As significant as those shows are, they came about a decade after the first Cohan shows. Prior to Cohan, most early American musical comedies were fragmented and diffuse. The songs and dances usually had little or nothing to do with the plot of the show, and were often changed to suit popular tastes and new performers. Cohan brought a bit more cohesion to the American musical, with songs and dances that were at least marginally related to the story. But that doesn't mean the shows were any good, at least by modern standards.

But there was another challenge to presenting the original show: racism. I had always read that Cohan shows were patriotic to the point of jingoism, and Little Johnny Jones certainly reflects that nationalistic bent, with foreigners portrayed in a rather unflattering light. But the original show also presents some challenging racial stereotypes, mostly with respect to the Chinese and Asian Americans. There's even a song in the second act called "March of the Frisco Chinks."

I've always taught my students that shows should be considered in their historical context. The very first word to Show Boat is the N-word, and my contention is that it should remain so, although many modern productions change the lyric to "colored folk work on the Mississippi" or "Here we all work on the Mississippi." The folks at the BoCo came across this conundrum last year when we presented a concert version of Show Boat, prompting a good deal of discussion and controversy. Eventually we went with "colored folk," a choice that I disagree with, but given the strength of feeling from our African American students, it may have been the wisest political move at the time.

As for Little Johnny Jones, fortunately there's a revised version, which was originally presented at the Goodspeed, and then transferred to Broadway. The show starred Donny Osmond as Johnny (opposite the BoCo's own Maureen Brennan in the ingenue role), and only lasted one performance. In his New York Times review, Frank Rich slammed Alfred Uhry's reworked book as a "synthetic hodgepodge," while acknowledging that the original would probably have been "just as unworkable." 

The new book does indeed have its problems, but I have decided to use it rather than the original for a number of reasons. First, I can't find the complete original score. (Anyone?) Second, Uhry's adaptation, while workaday, is a considerable improvement. And a distant third is the racism. The new book still has Chinese stereotypes, but Uhry makes some changes that make it all a bit more palatable. Again, the goal is to expose students to historically significant shows. And, interestingly enough, the new book does indeed reflect the imperfect integration of shows at that time, and it will be considerably more pleasant for the audience to sit through. The historian in me hates to compromise, but the showman in me wants to put on an enjoyable, and educational, show.

Flashback - Michael Bennett and Scandal

I was going through an old box of my college notebooks, when I came across an issue of Vanity Fair dated November 1984. I was about to throw it away when I noticed that on the last page there was an interview with Michael Bennett, who was in the middle of rehearsing Scandal.

Theater queens of a certain age will doubtless remember Scandal. It was meant to be Bennett's follow-up to Dreamgirls, a triumphant return to his A Chorus Line form. Bennett was even revisiting the famed ACL workshop process, allowing the show to emerge organically from a 12-month rehearsal period. In the Vanity Fair article, Bennett boasts that the opening number alone -- a 20-minute, full-on, balls-to-the-wall orgy featuring stars Swoosie Kurtz and Treat Williams -- took ten weeks of rehearsals to create.

Scandal was to have a score by Jimmy Webb and a book by Treva Silverman, neither of whom had any significant theatrical experience. But then, neither did Marvin Hamlisch. Bennett apparently preferred to work with newbies -- they're easier to bully about. It's certainly no secret at this point that Bennett was rather ruthless in his pursuit of theatrical perfection. To quote Bennett from the Vanity Fair article: "I usually try to hate everything when I'm rehearsing. In a way, I like to see the show as the enemy." Apparently this applied to his co-creators and performers as well.

I must say the Vanity Fair article doesn't reflect well on Bennett. Most of his quotes are pretty facile, if not downright puerile. In describing Scandal, Bennett says "It has a story with a beginning, middle, and an end, which I like in theater...And it has a happy ending, which I believe all musicals should have. For forty dollars a ticket, it's the least they should have!" The reference to forty-dollar tickets is simply amusing in retrospect. How could Bennett know that a scant 25 years later, ticket prices would have reached a ridiculous high of $136.50? (Thank you, Roundabout.)

But then there's the beginning/middle/end thing. Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. And every musical should have a happy ending? Um, really? West Side Story? Lost in the Stars? Grey Gardens? Parade? Marie Christine? Sweeney Todd? This sounds rather naive and disingenuous coming from the man who broke the hearts of sixteen fictional "boys and girls" nightly for 15 years with A Chorus Line.

Scandal as a show died with Michael Bennett. At the time, the official word was that the show was canceled because the salacious subject matter was inappropriate with the advent of AIDS. We later learned that AIDS was indeed to blame, but it wasn't the subject matter of the show, but rather the health of its creator that was at issue.

Bennett also pulled out of the London premier of Chess prior to its 1986 opening, for health reasons, although AIDS wasn't mentioned at the time. But by the time he left Chess, he had already commissioned the show's expensive and elaborate set, which consisted of two giant walls of video monitors and an enormous hydraulic chess board that rose and spun, not unlike the tire from Cats. Director Trevor Nunn inherited the production concept, but didn't seem to know how to do anything with it, and the result was pointlessly complicated and rather inert.

It's interesting to speculate what Scandal would have been like as a show, and whether there was any decent material there that's worth resurrecting. But it seems pretty clear that without the guiding and dictatorial hand of Michael Bennett, it's very likely that there really wouldn't be any there there. If there were, wouldn't something have leaked out in the interim, a la Carrie and the many extant bootlegs of same? And it's always heartbreaking to contemplate what might have been if Bennett have lived. Those of us content to appreciate what this tortured and torturing genius left behind at least have the October 13th DVD release of the "Every Little Step" to look forward to. 

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.

Hate Mail, Shows That Suck, and Walking Out

I get hate mail. I guess it comes with the territory. I'm pretty honest with my views, although I certainly do try to back those views up with credible support. And I must confess I have a tendency to get a tad snarky when it comes to writing up a review on a show that...well...sucked.

Ergo, the hate mail. Here's an email that I received recently from the author of a show to which I gave a rather negative review:

I'm sorry you were so unhappy watching the performance of my musical, [Suck-Job Special]. I feel like I owe you a little happiness. In fact,  reviews like yours gave me an uneasy feeling --  a feeling that I should give back the honors and the piles of royalties that this musical of mine has brought me over the twelve years, and continues to bring me. And there were many, many productions over those years, successful both with audiences and critics throughout the country. Anyway, here's the part that will make you happy: That feeling about giving it all back? It passed.

In other words, he's laughing all the way to the bank. Well, all I can say is: No, he's not. This show is not doing that well at the box office, and I would be very surprised if it had any kind of afterlife once it closes. But even if it did, so what? Since when is economic success equivalent to artistic achievement? If only his show were as well-crafted as his email, I might have given it a better review. I have no intention of responding directly to this gentleman, but I did make mention of the email on Facebook and Twitter. (Follow me on Twitter @ccaggiano) I reprint the essence of those posts here:

Dear Bad Writer: Are you sending angry emails to everyone who panned your show? You must be very busy.

Of course, many of my homies came to my defense. A college friend wrote me saying "You obviously are doing something right. People never respond strongly to the mediocre. Congrats." I must admit that I get a sinking feeling whenever I see the name of a composer, librettist or lyricist in my in-box. I usually reread my review before I read their correspondence to solidify my resolve, and sometimes wait a day or two before I'm ready to face the music, as it were.

I was reminded of the hate-mail kerfuffle when my dear friend Steve on Broadway sparked a lively discourse on Twitter when he asked if anyone had ever walked out of a Broadway show. (You can read the responses on Twitter by searching for #walkoutofshow.) I myself have never walked out of a Broadway show, nor any professional production for that matter. Obviously, that doesn't mean that I've enjoyed everything that I've ever seen. As the above discussion would indicate, that's hardly the case. But the reason that I've never walked out is that, as a teacher and indeed student of musical theater, I always learn something even from the most atrocious shows, even if it's what not to do.

Oh, there have been times when I've been tempted. I've seen some pretty dreadful stuff over the years, most of which I've listed on my page The Musicals That Suck. Some recent shows that have been downright painful to sit through include The Pirate Queen, A Tale of Two Cities, Dirty Dancing, Happy Days, Lestat, Frankenstein, Young Frankenstein, and LoveMusik. Some historical stinkers I've suffered through include Victor/Victoria, Starlight Express, Roza, Mutiny, and Into the Light.

But never once did I consider walking out. Before I started blogging, I hung in there because the more notorious the flop, the more I got to dine out on the whole sordid story with my theater friends. And now that I have the blog, I get to vent in printed form. I mean, come on, aren't the bad reviews the most fun to read? Well, they're pretty darned fun to write as well. I guess I'm able to suffer through the worst with the knowledge that I'll be able to get a bit of my own back when I sit down at my computer. 

What about you, dear reader? Have you ever walked out of a Broadway show? A touring company? A London show? I mean, even I've walked out of bad community productions or high school travesties. I'm talking professional shows, put on by people who really should know better, or presumably should be able to produce better. If you have walked out, what was the show, and why? If you didn't leave, why did you stay?

More Fallout From Tony Ruling

Apparently, the critics are pissed.

According to Variety, there's been a considerable backlash on the part of the New York critical establishment on the decision by the Tony Awards Powers That Be to remove journalists from the voting rolls. The move has some "journos," as Variety so colorfully coins them, mulling some sort of retaliatory tactic, including "lodging a formal complaint to reopen negotiations, as well as prompting talk of expanding the [New York Drama Critics Circle] annual awards to counter the exclusion from the Tonys."

The article goes on to address various nefarious motivations that different folks have posited as the real reason for the change, with most people dismissing the "conflict of interest" ploy as utter hogwash. Among them:

• Presenters and promoters want to tighten their control over the Tony Awards, further emphasizing that the whole thing's just a marketing ploy anyway.
• Producers are sick of forking over 800 pairs of free tickets, which is ridiculous, since critics see the shows free anyway, even if they're not Tony voters.
• Some theater folk have been pissed at certain theater pundits making Tony predictions and voting to ensure those predictions come true, which even if true seems like an extraordinarily minor point at best.

So, whatever. The Tempest in a Tony Teapot will eventually die down, but another point that the article made really hit home for me, as I'm sure it will for my fellow bloggers:

Others feel the outbreak in recent years of bloggers who disregard established professional etiquette by weighing in before a show's official opening has damaged the reputation of the entire critical community. "Anyone in a position to make editorial comment is now regarded as the enemy," one pundit said.

"Disregard professional etiquette?" I find that wording offensive. "Professional" implies that we're getting paid, which we're not. And "disregard" assumes that bloggers are privy to the inner workings of the critical sanctum sanctorum, which I find arrogant and solipsistic.

But the larger, and more important, point is this: Should bloggers be reviewing shows during previews? I've done so myself, although I've made it plain that the show I was reviewing was in previews. My attitude has always been, if they're charging for admission, the ticket-buying public deserves to know what kind of show they're paying for. But if the bad word gets around before the creators have a chance to make changes, is that fair to the creative staff and the performers?

So, you're on a bobsled and it's snowing out, and it's cold. OK. Go.

What Are Critics Good For?

What is the job of the critic?

That's the question that I've been pondering since coming across a few posts and discussion threads on the sites of my fellow bloggers Aaron Riccio of That Sounds Cool and Isaac Butler of Parabasis. It was humbling that my blogging colleagues had to call attention to something that was happening in my own backyard, but I'm nonetheless grateful to them for the tip off.

It seems that after Louise Kennedy of the Boston Globe gave the Huntington Theater's production of Pirates a bad review, Huntington Managing Director Michael Maso put up a post on the theater's blog taking Kennedy to task, and asking readers to speak out against her. Quoth Maso:

In over three decades of producing plays, I have never felt such a disconnect between the experience in the theatre and the reflection of a critic. Louise's first line displays her anger at the fact that the audience was responding with cheers and laughter throughout the evening, and her condescension to the audience and artists alike is breathtaking.

Maso goes on:

I have no theory about what is behind this review. I only know that the destructive power of one person, when that person is given the imprimatur of the region's largest newspaper, needs to be balanced by the voices of the thousands who have already let us know about the joy they have found in the laughter, the music, the wit, and the sheer artistry displayed by those involved in this production.

Um, Michael, how's this for a theory: she didn't like the show. And she has every right to say so. Maso and his minions seem to be of the mind that critics should somehow factor the audience response into their reviews. Well, guess what, people: Audiences stood and cheered at the end of Lestat, The Pirate Queen, and Frankenstein. I know, because I was there. And those shows were all unmitigated dreck. And I have it on good authority that they were cheering in the aisles at the end of Carrie, too.

Kennedy's review wasn't particularly vitriolic, but it was honest. Maso appears to be trying to save face with what is in fact a popular but artistically disappointing show. (Read my review.) What Maso intended to be a rallying of the troops turned out merely to call unfortunate attention to the bad review (which I hadn't even read until the advent of this little tempest in a teapot), and give the theater a black eye in the blogosphere. Plus, fomenting ad hominem attacks against a critic may not be the best way to curry favor in the eyes of the critical community. But here's something that should please Maso: with the decline of daily newspapers, theater bloggers are becoming increasingly influential voices, in effect decentralizing the force of critical opinion away from the previously powerful papers.

As I said in my review, I didn't really like Pirates, either, and I had my own little Maso moment when I received an angry email from the actor playing the Pirate King, Steve Kazee. I had said that it was beginning to look as though his "charisma-deprived" performance as Starbuck opposite Audra MacDonald in the recent Broadway revival of 110 in the Shade "wasn't a fluke." Kazee took great issue with my appraisal, and said so in strong, borderline threatening terms. (He dared me to come down to the Huntington and say these "hurtful" words to his face.) Kazee and I had a spirited conversation back and forth, and we eventually parted on cordial terms. I basically said that I reserved the right to call 'em as I see 'em, and he exorted me to remember that there are real people with feelings on the receiving end of my reviews. Fair enough.

So, dear reader, what is the job of the critic? I would submit that it's *not* the same as the job of the reporter: to dispassionately relay the facts and give equal voice to all sides. As the title implies, a "critic" is charged with weighing the merits of a particular show against his or her own set of aesthetic and artistic criteria. How could it possibly be otherwise?